Catholics and Orthodox teach that the Apostles named Bishops, and these Bishops named subsequent Bishops, and only men from this continuous line can administer sacraments necessary for salvation. Oftentimes, this “transmission of grace” gives these church the ability to reevaluate tradition and refine doctrine, arguably devising new ones that were absent in the first few centuries of the Church. Protestants contend that Apostolic Succession “may also be understood as a continuity in doctrinal teaching from the time of the apostles to the present.”
Who’s right?
One of the big defenders of the Catholic/Orthodox view of Apostolic Succession is supposedly Irenaeus. However, what does Irenaeus actually write?
It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 3, Paragraph 1).
From the context, we can see that Irenaeus is clearly not talking about profound apostolic powers inherited by those bishops in the Apostolic churches. Rather, he is saying that the churches which were apostolic all had the same doctrines and traditions, while all the zany heresies he is writing against have not coincidentally originated outside the established churches.
Hence, his contention makes perfect sense. If all the churches which literally received letters from Paul and such (Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, etc) all taught X and had Y doctrines from A and B Scriptures, but the heretics from totally different places taught R and S doctrines from C and D Scriptures, wouldn’t it make sense that X and Y, A and B were legit from the Apostles and not R and S, C and D?
Elsewhere in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies this interpretation is apparent. For example, in Book 3, Chapter 4, Paragraph 3, he makes clear that Apostolic Succession is a safeguard against heresy because it historically proves that the heresies come from times that could not have been Apostolic. For example, Irenaeus asserts, “For, prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence; nor did those from Marcion exist before Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom I have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and inventors of their perversity…[A]ll these (the Marcosians) broke out into their apostasy much later, even during the intermediate period of the Church.” Yet, in Book 3, Chapter 3 Irenaeus at length can show how the Church of Rome, Ephesus, and even he himself have received teaching from men who have known the Apostles directly.
Interestingly enough, the heretics he wrote against when “confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority” (Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 1). And so, they claimed that “the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce” (Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 1). Hmmm, what “churches” argue that the Scripture is insufficient and argue that doctrines surrounding prayers to the dead and the assumption of Mary, though absent in the historical record for hundreds of years, were taught viva voce?
Further, the dichotomous view of Scripture and tradition that Catholics and Orthodox hold to would be completely alien to Irenaeus. He writes, “Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, John 14:6 and that no lie is in Him” (Book 3, Chapter 5, Paragraph 1).
From the above reading of Irenaeus, I believe we are right in saying this: Any assertion, or implication, that any man can claim to be an inheritor of the title “Apostle” and yet contradict the Scripture stands in clear contradiction of tradition. Apostolic Succession is only legitimate if the doctrines taught by the institution that lays claim to such inheritance is consistent with the Scripture, which Irenaeus defines as “the tradition from the apostles.” Further, they cannot contradict (or add) to the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers, who themselves laid claim to succession, and expect anyone to take them seriously.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
It’s an interesting and valiant attempt; thanks for pointing it out. I applaud that you are digging into the Fathers: but to refute a doctrine, you need to be sure that you correctly understand what it is you are rejecting. On one hand, you are attacking a straw man: what you are rejecting, claiming Irenaeus does not teach it, is not what anybody claims he teaches; and on another, you are taking his argument only in part; in full, it does not support what you want it to support.
You argue in several places, for example, against “any man [claiming] to be an inheritor of the title ‘Apostle'” or “inheriting apostolic powers” — but no. This is not what anybody believes. The doctrine of apostolic succession upheld by the Catholic, Orthodox, and other traditional divisions of Christians teaches two things and two things only: the handing down (Latin traditio) of orthodox Christian teaching (doctrine), and the handing down of an office, not as apostle, but as bishop. Bishops do not have the “powers” of the Apostles; they have only the limited authority to do what the Apostles appointed bishops to do. This is entirely consistent with what the earliest Churches received and what is attested to in both Scriptures and in the Church Fathers.
You assert that “Irenaeus is clearly not talking about profound apostolic powers inherited by those bishops in the Apostolic churches”, but “rather, he is saying that the churches which were apostolic all had the same doctrines and traditions.” Certainly, he is not talking about “profound apostolic powers” — nobody says he is. But the very passage you quote does not at all support your statement. Is he saying that “all the [apostolic] churches had the same doctrines and traditions”? Why, yes he is. But why do they? How does a believer know, in a world where a myriad “zazy heresies” are cropping up throughout the world, that the Church he is a part of is an “Apostolic Church”? How can he know that his Church is teaching true, Apostolic doctrine? “By Scripture alone”? No; in fact, Irenaeus argues against this view precisely.
Yes, the heretics reject arguments from the Scriptures, claiming that they alone have the correct interpretation of them (III.1) — an argument that can apply to Protestants just as easily as you apply it to Catholics. So how does a believer know who is right, who is correctly interpreting the Scriptures? In the very next paragraph (as well as elsewhere throughout his work), Irenaeus does indeed appeal to Apostolic Tradition as something “dichotomous” and in addition to “Scripture alone”:
So, then, we have a conundrum: The orthodox believer answers the heretic’s contentions with that tradition which originates from the Apostles, preserved by the succession of presbyters. — and the heretics reject even that, claiming to know better, to have their own “secret knowledge”(γνῶσις [gnōsis]). These heretics reject both Scripture and Tradition. How can this conflict be resolved? What makes “the established Church? How can a believer know the truth? Irenaeus does not leave us hanging, but answers, forcefully and authoritatively:
Thus, Irenaeus’s argument, when you take it in full, does not support your contention that Apostolic Succession inheres only in the continuity of orthodox doctrine: Rather, Apostolic Succession, the succession of presbyters, is the glue that holds together Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the guarantor that what is being passed down is orthodox and true, the chain of custody (since you like talking about evidence) of Apostolic truth. Neither Scripture alone nor Tradition alone avails anything in arguing against these heretics, but only Scripture and Tradition, guaranteed by Apostolic Succession.
You do come close to getting it correct. You write: “For example … Irenaeus makes clear that Apostolic Succession is a safeguard against heresy because it historically proves that the heresies come from times that could not have been Apostolic.” You’re exactly right. So follow the argument through to Irenaeus’s end. If we know that such heresies which lack Apostolic Succession cannot be true, how do we know what is true, orthodox doctrine, what is true? Yes, again, “Irenaeus … shows how the Church of Rome, Ephesus, and even he himself have received teaching from men who have known the Apostles directly.” Exactly right! You are actually supporting what the traditional Churches believe about apostolic succession rather than refuting it.
I wrote a considerable bit about the Church’s understanding of apostolic succession in my treatise on the papacy of Peter. In further support of apostolic succession being the handing down of an office (that of bishop) and the authority that goes along with that office, I point especially to the writings of Clement of Rome (for whom a strong argument can be made to date as early as A.D. 70) and Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 107). I examined quotations from Clement attesting to apostolic succession under the heading “More than One Bishop?” from Ignatius under the heading “One Bishop (Monoepiscopacy).”
May the peace of Christ be with you!
I have certainly met my match, if not have been clearly over-matched by you. You responses are so thorough and well thought out, it is very time consuming to answer it all! My response might not be able to do yours justice (especially I have already argued this ad nauseum in a couple of places) so I apologize if my reply is lackluster!
“It’s an interesting and valiant attempt; thanks for pointing it out..”
I’ll take valiant.
“…you are attacking a straw man: what you are rejecting…”
I really don’t think so. To put it simply, Catholics claim they have valid sacraments due to Apostolic Succession. Yet, Irenaeus never addresses the issue of the validity of sacraments. Then, Catholics argue that Rome has correct doctrine because of Roman Primacy, which inevitably ties into apostolic succession. So, no one overtly claims that modern Catholic/Eastern Orthodox bishops have magical powers of inerrancy, yet on the other side of their mouths they believe the Holy Spirit superintends that they never propagate error or false doctrine by virtue of their apostolic succession.
I reject this disingenuous argumentation and expose it for what it is. Irenaeus never said that those who are successors of the Apostles can never be in error and will forever be correct in doctrine. His argument plainly was that all of the Apostolic Churches of that time taught the same thing, had the same Scriptures, and the heretics all came about afterwards, which was three marks against them.
“By Scripture alone…”
Irenaeus seems to allude as such as I already quoted in the article:
“Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by thoseapostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, John 14:6and that no lie is in Him” (Book 3, Chapter 5, Paragraph 1).
“No; in fact, Irenaeus argues against this view precisely.”
Actually, he doesn’t and you cannot find a verse that says such.
“So how does a believer know who is right, who is correctly interpreting the Scriptures?”
Or which Scriptures? It requires a valid understanding of tradition, which the method of discerning as such makes perfect sense the way Irenaues lays out.
“So, then, we have a conundrum: The orthodox believer answers the heretic’s contentions with that tradition which originates from the Apostles, preserved by the succession of presbyters….”
Not really, Irenaues clearly believes that the traditions as upheld in the Scriptures, universally regarded by Apostolic Churches, trumps supposedly secret knowledge sectrly passed on that no one ever heard before.
For they [the apostles] were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.3.1).
“Rather, Apostolic Succession, the succession of presbyters, is the glue that holds together Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the guarantor that what is being passed down is orthodox and true, the chain of custody (since you like talking about evidence) of Apostolic truth.”
And your contention is that this is true for the rest of time? Where does Irenaues say this? If Peter picked Clement real well, this guarantees that Clement picks his successor and etc perfectly for all time?
“You are actually supporting what the traditional Churches believe about apostolic succession rather than refuting it.”
Again, I am not trying to refute what Irenaeus believed about Apostolic Succession. I am trying to draw out what he really said compared to what people claim Apostolic Succession is today.
Thanks for your kind words. I am sorry if I come on strong. I don’t mean to be overwhelming, but I do try to be thorough and effective.
Ignatius does address that, per the quotes I think you know. Irenaeus’s orthodox concern is doctrine and rejecting heresy, not sacramental theology. Read the argument he makes, not the ones he doesn’t make; and don’t assume too much from his silence on issues he does not address.
Rome does not have correct doctrine because of Roman primacy, she has correct doctrine because she teaches the same doctrine that was handed down by the Apostles. It is because of Roman primacy that all the other Churches of the world should look to Rome as an exemplar of that doctrine. And that is in fact the very argument that Irenaeus makes next:
You continue:
No, that isn’t in fact what anybody teaches. Bishops, even those who have received their authority from true and valid apostolic tradition, are just as susceptible to falling into error and even heresy as anybody else. Note, for example, the Arian controversy, when heresy spread throughout even the bishops of the Church like a plague. What the Church actually teaches about the indefectibility of the Church (meaning she will never fail completely, as Jesus Himself promised — which is different from inerrancy, meaning she will never err) is that all the bishops in council with one another will be guided into the truth, hence the calling of the First Council of Nicaea and other ecumenical councils for the purpose of discerning the truth and combating heresy — a doctrine with support from both the words of Jesus (Matthew 8:15-20) and the practice of the Apostolic Church (Acts 15).
Once again: What he actually teaches is that the apostolic churches teach the same thing because their doctrine is ensured by the succession of orthodox bishops from the Apostles.
I think you only find that allusion because that is what you presume to begin with. As I showed above, he presents “that tradition which originates from the Apostles, and is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters” as something in addition to and separate from Scripture. So we must read your excerpt in this context:
Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us…
That is, since we have, as he has just said in the previous chapters, the “tradition which originates from the Apostles,” and since it is permanent, because it is “preserved by means of the succession of bishops.”
…let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him” (Book 3, Chapter 5, Paragraph 1).
So — since [because] we have the assurance of orthodox doctrine which comes from the tradition of the Apostles, ensured by succession of bishops — we can turn to the Scriptures to reason. This does not say at all what you want it to say: the ability to reason from the Scriptures follows from the tradition of the Apostles, not the other way around.
The trajectory of Irenaeus’s argument in Book III, Chapters 2 and 3:
2.1. When [the heretics] are confuted from the Scriptures, they [reject] the Scriptures, as if they were incorrect, not authoritative, ambiguous, etc.; that the truth cannot be extracted from them without Tradition.
2.2. But when referred to the Tradition of the Apostles, preserved by the succession of bishops, they object to tradition, claiming secret knowledge [gnosis]. “These men consent neither to Scripture nor to Tradition.”
2.3. These adversaries “endeavor like slippery serpents to escape at all points.” But “it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.”
3.1. “Therefore, it is within the power of all … to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the Apostles; we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted by the Apostles as bishops and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times.” If the Apostles possessed secret knowledge (as the Gnostics claim), then surely they would have entrusted it to these men whom they appointed as their successors.
3.2. Since it would be very tedious to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we can refute the heretics “by indicating that Tradition derived from the Apostles of the very great, the very ancient, the universally known Church at Rome, organized by two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church agree with this Church on account of its preeminent authority.”
3.3. (He in fact does as he says, and “reckons up the succession” of bishops in Rome from Peter and Paul to the present day.) “In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”
In short: He plainly distinguishes between Scripture and Tradition, and demonstrates that neither Scripture alone nor Tradition alone is effective in refuting the heretics. Only by Scripture and Tradition upheld by the succession of bishops can an effective refutation be given.
No, I haven’t contended that. What Irenaeus contends is that a valid succession ensures that orthodox doctrine is being taught, “inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere” (III.3.2). In other words, bishops can, do, and have strayed from the truth, but the orthodox churches have something that the heretics do not have: verification that their doctrine comes from a true source. What ensures the continuation of the orthodox faith is not merely apostolic succession in itself, but in the unity of the faith and tradition, which is “preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere,” each church guiding itself one to another, especially to the Church of Rome, “on account of its preeminent authority.”
You are arguing that “what people claim apostolic succession is today” is something different from what Irenaeus (and Ignatius, and Clement, and others) teach. And in fact, it’s not. You continue to show a mistaken understanding of what it is “people claim apostolic succesion is today,” and I think it’s there that you need to begin.
His peace be with you!
Pardon, the citation to Jesus on bringing disputes to the authority of the Church is Matthew 18:15-20, not 8:15-20.
Hi Joseph, the reasoning you offer is crystal clear, I appreciate it. Thank you for taking the time to argue in such insightful manner.
Gabriel, thanks. I’m glad to know I was able to help somebody here. The peace of the Lord be with you.