"Where does your authority come from? Who gave you the right to teach this?" Since the earliest centuries, whenever a new doctrine has claimed to speak in the name of Christ, the Church has asked the same verifying question: where did you get what you hand on? To this question, the Catholic Church answers with a word that may sound technical: apostolic succession. Behind the term lies a very simple and very great conviction: the faith we receive today is not a recent invention nor one opinion among others — it comes to us, from hand to hand, from the Apostles themselves, to whom Christ entrusted it.
The word therefore does not first denote a curiosity of church history. It denotes a channel: the concrete way in which Christ willed his Gospel, his sacraments, and the government of his Church to cross the centuries without breaking or becoming corrupt. Where succession is alive, the Church can say: what I give you, I received (cf. 1 Cor 11:23). Where it breaks, something of the entrusted deposit always risks being lost.
This article takes the question seriously: not "are Catholics right to believe this?" in a polemical sense, but "why does the Church speak of it, and why does she hold it so dear?" We shall see what the term means exactly, its roots in the New Testament, its attestation from the very first Christian generation, what it really guarantees, and how it answers the objections raised against it. The note of the Church's apostolicity as a whole will not be treated here — that is the subject of the article Why is the Church one, holy, catholic and apostolic? — but rather the precise point of the succession of ministers.
What is apostolic succession?
Before asking why the Church holds it dear, we must know precisely what we are talking about. The term is often misunderstood, reduced at times to an archival genealogy, at times to a mere idea of moral continuity. The reality is both more concrete and more profound.
A simple definition
Apostolic succession is the unbroken transmission of the apostolic ministry — that is, of the charge of teaching, sanctifying, and governing the Church — from the Apostles down to today's bishops, through the sacrament of Holy Orders. Concretely: no man becomes a bishop by appointing himself, nor by popular election alone, nor by personal talent. He becomes one because other bishops, themselves ordained in this chain, lay their hands on him and pray over him the prayer of consecration. Each bishop is thus one link in a chain that goes back, link by link, to the Twelve.
The Catechism puts it soberly:
"The bishops, by divine institution, succeed the Apostles as pastors of the Church, so that whoever listens to them listens to Christ, and whoever rejects them rejects Christ and him who sent Christ." — Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 862[1]
Succession is therefore not an honorary title: it is the continuity of a received mission. The bishop does not act in his own name; he stands in the place of the Apostles, who themselves stood in the place of Christ.
"Material" and "formal" succession
To understand the debates, we must distinguish two dimensions that Catholic theology always holds together.
Material succession (or "successio in munere", succession in the office) is the concrete, verifiable chain of ordinations: A ordained B, who ordained C, and so on. It is the physical transmission of sacramental power through the laying on of hands. Without it, a man simply does not receive the sacrament of Orders: he is not a bishop, whatever his qualities.
Formal succession (or doctrinal succession) is fidelity to the content received from the Apostles: the same faith, the same Gospel, the same rule of life. A validly ordained bishop who betrayed the apostolic faith would break this succession, even if he kept the material chain.
The mistake is to oppose the two, as though the Catholic Church retained only the first (sacramental "plumbing") and Protestantism only the second (fidelity to doctrine). In reality, the Church holds both together: true apostolic succession is both the valid transmission of the ministry and fidelity to the transmitted faith. One without the other is maimed.
What succession is not
Several recurring misunderstandings deserve to be set aside from the outset.
It is not a mere honorary genealogy, like a list of ancestors brandished out of pride of lineage. The chain of ordinations is worth anything only because it hands on a charge of service: guarding the flock, preaching, sanctifying.
It is not a transmission of personal holiness. An unworthy bishop validly transmits Orders — as a rusty pipe still lets pure water through — because it is Christ who acts in the sacrament, not the minister's virtue. The Church affirmed this from the Donatist crisis onward: the validity of the sacrament does not depend on the holiness of the one who administers it[2].
Nor is it a dynasty of power. Succession does not manufacture princes: it constitutes servants. Christ explicitly overturned the logic of power: "the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them...; it shall not be so among you" (cf. Mt 20:25-27). We shall return to this: succession is a service handed on, not a throne.
The biblical roots of succession
If the Church speaks of apostolic succession, it is not out of a taste for institutions: it is because the New Testament already shows us, before our eyes, the Apostles organizing the transmission of their charge. The thing is there before the word.
Jesus chooses and sends the Twelve
Everything begins with a free and deliberate choice of Christ. Jesus does not merely teach crowds: he constitutes a group of Twelve, calls them "Apostles" — that is, "those sent" — and confers on them an authority that prolongs his own.
"As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." — Jesus, Jn 20:21[3]
The formula is decisive: the mission of the Apostles is not of another order than Christ's; it is its prolongation. Hence Jesus can say: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Lk 10:16)[4]. And as he sends them "to the end of the earth," he adds a promise that manifestly overflows the single generation of the Twelve:
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." — Jesus, Mt 28:19-20[5]
"To the close of the age": the mission entrusted to the Apostles must last well beyond their death. Yet the Apostles are mortal. For the promise to hold, the charge must therefore be handed on. Apostolic succession is nothing other than the way this promise comes true in time.
The replacement of Judas: the first succession
The very first act of the Church after the Ascension, even before Pentecost, is an act of succession. The place left vacant by Judas's betrayal must be filled. Peter rises and quotes Scripture:
"His office let another take." — Acts of the Apostles, 1:20 (quoting Ps 109:8)[6]
The Greek word used is episkopē — the "office of oversight," the episcopate. The community does not consider the vacancy of an apostle a matter of indifference: a successor must be given to him, Matthias, to reconstitute the college of the Twelve. This detail is decisive: from the very first hour, the apostolic charge is treated as something handed on and replaced, not as a personal privilege that would die out with its holder.
The Apostles appoint leaders
As the Gospel spreads, the Apostles do not leave the communities without structure. Everywhere, they appoint leaders — called presbyters (elders) or overseers (episkopoi) according to the place — to continue locally what they themselves will not be able to do forever.
"And when they had appointed elders for them in each of their churches, with prayer and fasting they committed to the Lord these men who had believed in him." — Acts of the Apostles, 14:23[7]
To the leaders of Ephesus, gathered at Miletus, Paul delivers a farewell discourse that states exactly the logic of succession: he is leaving, but he hands over to them the charge of the flock.
"Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of the Lord which he obtained with his own blood." — Saint Paul, Acts 20:28[8]
The word translated here as "guardians" is again episkopous, "bishops." Paul knows he is going to die; he therefore hands on his pastoral vigilance to those who remain. The structure of succession is there, in seed: a ministry received, exercised, then handed on before departing.
Timothy and Titus: the laying on of hands handed on
The link between the charge and the gesture of its transmission — the laying on of hands — is explicit in the pastoral letters. Paul reminds Timothy of the origin of his ministry:
"For this reason I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you since I laid my hands upon you." — Saint Paul, 2 Tim 1:6[9]
And elsewhere: "Do not neglect the gift of grace in you... when the council of elders laid their hands upon you" (1 Tim 4:14)[10]. Timothy in turn must appoint other ministers — and Paul warns him: "Do not be too hasty in laying hands on anyone" (1 Tim 5:22)[11], proof that this gesture confers a real charge that must not be granted lightly. Likewise Titus is left in Crete with a mission of structuring:
"If I left you in Crete, it was so that you might finish organizing everything and appoint elders in every town as I myself commanded you." — Saint Paul, Titus 1:5[12]
We already see three generations at work: Paul, then Timothy and Titus, then the elders whom they appoint. The mechanism of succession is underway before our eyes, in the very text of the New Testament.
"Entrust to trustworthy men": the chain of 2 Tim 2:2
A single verse condenses the whole doctrine of succession — so much so that it is sometimes called the "apostolic succession verse":
"What you heard me say in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to trustworthy men who will be able to teach others also." — Saint Paul, 2 Tim 2:2[13]
Count the links: Paul hands on to Timothy, who must hand on to trustworthy men, who will teach still others. Four generations in one sentence. And what is handed on is not merely an abstract doctrine: it is a deposit entrusted to specific, chosen, mandated persons, responsible for keeping it "undefiled" (cf. 1 Tim 6:20: "guard what has been entrusted to you"). That is exactly what the Church calls apostolic succession: a living content handed on through a chain of mandated persons.
The witness of the Church Fathers
What the New Testament shows in seed, the next generation — that of the "apostolic Fathers," who knew the Apostles or their immediate disciples — names and defends explicitly. Succession is not a theory invented in the Middle Ages: it is attested from the end of the 1st century.
Clement of Rome (c. 96)
The oldest Christian document outside the New Testament to speak of succession is the Letter to the Corinthians of Saint Clement of Rome, written around 96 — probably while the apostle John was still alive. The Church of Corinth had driven out its legitimate presbyters; Clement, in the name of the Church of Rome, intervenes to restore order, and his argument is succession:
"Our Apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the bishop's office. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed [ministers], and afterwards laid down a rule: when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." — Saint Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 44:1-2[14]
The text is remarkably clear: the Apostles provided for their succession, instituted ministers and organized their replacement. Driving out presbyters legitimately established in this chain, Clement concludes, is a grave fault against the order willed by God[15]. We are barely sixty years after the death of Christ: apostolic succession is not a late development; it is the native structure of the Church.
Saint Irenaeus of Lyons: succession against the Gnostics
The great theoretician of succession is Saint Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202), disciple of Saint Polycarp, himself a disciple of the apostle John. Around 180, Irenaeus confronts the Gnostics, who claim to hold a "secret tradition" going back to the Apostles through hidden channels. His refutation is luminous and rests entirely on succession: if the Apostles had possessed a secret teaching, they would have entrusted it first to those to whom they handed over the churches — the bishops. Yet the bishops, whose succession can be publicly enumerated, teach nothing of the sort.
"We can enumerate those who were established as bishops in the churches by the Apostles, and their successors down to us: they taught and knew nothing like the ravings of these people." — Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, III, 3, 1[16]
To prove his point, Irenaeus does what no one could do with a secret tradition: he gives the list of the bishops of Rome from the Apostles Peter and Paul — Linus, Anacletus, Clement, and so on down to his contemporary Eleutherus — and affirms that through this public chain, "the tradition of the Apostles... has come down to us"[17]. Succession is thus, in Irenaeus, the criterion of truth that distinguishes authentic faith from heretical inventions: we believe what the churches founded by the Apostles, whose episcopal lineage can be verified, have always taught.
"True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles and the ancient organization of the Church spread throughout the whole world, and the character of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, to whom the Apostles entrusted each local church." — Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, IV, 33, 8[18]
Tertullian, Hegesippus, and the episcopal lists
Irenaeus is not isolated. At the same period, the apologist Tertullian opposes the heretics with the same argument in his Prescription Against Heretics (c. 200): let them "unroll the list of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning, in such a way that their first bishop had for guarantor and predecessor one of the Apostles or of apostolic men"[19]. In other words: no verifiable succession, no authority to teach.
A little earlier, the chronicler Hegesippus (c. 110-180) had, according to Eusebius of Caesarea, drawn up the succession of the bishops of Rome to show the continuity of doctrine[20]. This practice of "episcopal lists" is significant: such lists are not kept for the pleasure of archiving, but because they prove the apostolicity of a church. The following table sums up these early witnesses.
| Witness | Date | Work | What he affirms about succession |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clement of Rome | c. 96 | Letter to the Corinthians | The Apostles instituted ministers and provided for their replacement |
| Ignatius of Antioch | c. 107 | Letters (to the Magnesians, to the Trallians...) | The bishop "presides in the place of God" (Magn. 6:1); nothing without the bishop (Trall. 2:2)[21] |
| Hegesippus | c. 160 | Memoirs (quoted by Eusebius) | Lists of the bishops of Rome guaranteeing continuity of faith |
| Irenaeus of Lyons | c. 180 | Against Heresies | Episcopal succession is the public criterion of true doctrine |
| Tertullian | c. 200 | Prescription Against Heretics | A church without apostolic succession has no authority to teach |
This converging body of testimony, from places as diverse as Rome, Antioch, Lyons, and Carthage, shows that apostolic succession was, from the 2nd century onward, the Church's common rule of discernment — not one person's invention.
Why does the Church hold it so dear?
We come to the heart of the question. Why is this point so important in the eyes of the Catholic Church? Not out of legalism, but because succession serves three goods that nothing else can guarantee so surely: the truth of the faith, the reality of the sacraments, and the unity of the Church.
Keeping the Gospel intact: the guarantee of truth
The first issue is that of the transmitted truth. How can we be sure, twenty centuries after Christ, that what we believe is indeed what he taught, and not a deformation accumulated over time? The Catholic answer is not "each will deduce it from his own reading," but "there exists a living chain of mandated witnesses to guard the deposit." The Second Vatican Council says it clearly, relying precisely on Irenaeus:
"But in order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, handing over to them their 'own position of magisterium.'" — Second Vatican Council, Dei verbum, 7[22]
Succession is thus the support of the living Tradition. It does not rival Scripture: it guarantees that Scripture is read in the faith of those who received it from the Apostles. That is why the question of succession directly touches that of Tradition: without mandated transmitters, the apostolic Tradition would dissolve into a multitude of private interpretations.
Ensuring the validity of the sacraments
The second issue is sacramental, and it is decisive for the concrete life of the faithful. The most important sacraments — the Eucharist and the forgiveness of sins — require a validly ordained minister. Yet one can only give what one has received: only a bishop inserted in the succession can validly ordain priests, and only those priests can validly consecrate the Eucharist or absolve sins.
Remove succession, and the whole sacramental chain falters: without valid bishops, no valid ordinations; without valid ordinations, no assured Eucharist. That is why the Church, while recognizing the baptism of Protestant communities, does not recognize the validity of their Lord's Supper: they lack, she says with sorrow and not with contempt, the sacrament of Orders received in apostolic succession[23]. Succession is therefore not a secondary point: it conditions the real presence of Christ offered to the faithful at every Mass. It is also what grounds the necessity of confessing to a priest rather than to God alone directly.
Maintaining the unity and apostolicity of the Church
The third issue is that of unity. The college of bishops, united with its head the successor of Peter, is the visible principle that keeps the Church from shattering into a dust of autonomous communities. Each bishop is not an isolated chief: he is a member of a college that prolongs the college of the Twelve, and his communion with the other bishops and with Rome is the sign that he truly teaches the faith of all. Succession is thus the visible skeleton of the Church's apostolicity — one of the four marks of the Creed, developed in the article on the four marks of the Church. It is also what makes a personal center of unity necessary: that is the meaning of the office of the pope, successor of Peter within the college of the successors of the Apostles.
The sacrament of Orders, channel of transmission
How does this transmission concretely take place? Through a sacrament — the sacrament of Orders — whose essential rite has remained identical since the Apostles: the laying on of hands by the bishop on the ordinand, accompanied by the consecratory prayer asking God for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The Council of Trent defined against the Reformers that Orders is indeed one of the seven sacraments, instituted by Christ, and not a mere delegation from the community:
"If anyone says that Order or sacred ordination is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord... let him be anathema." — Council of Trent, session 23 (1563), canon 3[24]
It is because Orders is a sacrament — an efficacious sign that truly produces what it signifies — that succession is more than a juridical transmission: at each episcopal ordination, it is Christ himself who, through the Spirit, configures a man to his mission as Shepherd. The Catechism speaks of an indelible spiritual character: one does not become a bishop "for a fixed term"; one is one forever[25].
What the Magisterium says
The doctrine we have just surveyed is taught with constancy by the Church. The following table gathers the major texts — useful for verifying that nothing above is a personal reconstruction.
| Source | Reference | Teaching |
|---|---|---|
| Council of Trent | Session 23 (1563), canons 3-4 and 6-7 | Orders is a true sacrament; there exists a hierarchy of divine right (bishops, priests, ministers) instituted by Christ[26] |
| Second Vatican Council | Lumen gentium, 18-21 | The bishops succeed the Apostles by divine institution; episcopal consecration confers the fullness of the sacrament of Orders[27] |
| Second Vatican Council | Dei verbum, 7-8 | The bishops, successors of the Apostles, keep and hand on the Gospel "whole and alive"[28] |
| Catechism | §§ 857-862 | Definition of apostolicity and of succession as the prolongation of the Apostles' mission[29] |
| Catechism | §§ 1555-1561, 1576 | The episcopal ministry and transmission through the laying on of hands |
| Leo XIII | Apostolicae curae (1896) | Ordinations according to the reformed Anglican rite are invalid, for lack of adequate form and intention[30] |
What Lumen gentium states soberly deserves quoting, for it sums up everything:
"Therefore this Sacred Synod teaches that the bishops, by divine institution, succeed to the place of the Apostles as shepherds of the Church, so that he who hears them hears Christ, and he who rejects them rejects Christ and him who sent Christ." — Second Vatican Council, Lumen gentium, 20[31]
Objections and answers
The doctrine of succession is alive because it is contested, above all since the Protestant Reformation. Honesty requires stating the strongest objections and answering them.
"True succession is that of doctrine, not of persons"
This is the classic Protestant objection, formulated from the 16th century onward: what counts is not a chain of ordinations but fidelity to the Gospel. A minister who preaches the pure Gospel is in apostolic succession, even without an episcopal lineage; a bishop who betrays the Gospel has left it, despite his lineage.
Answer. There is truth in this objection — and the Catholic Church acknowledges it: we have seen that formal succession (fidelity to the faith) is genuinely indispensable. A heretical bishop gravely wounds apostolicity. But the objection has a flaw: it opposes what Christ united. In the New Testament, doctrine is never handed on apart from mandated persons: Paul entrusts the deposit to Timothy through the laying on of hands (2 Tim 1:6), and Timothy to others (2 Tim 2:2). Reducing succession to doctrine alone assumes that each person can verify by himself the purity of the Gospel — which leads straight back to the very problem succession comes to solve: who guarantees that a given interpretation is the right one? The history of Protestant divisions, divided into very many denominations with divergent doctrines, illustrates the difficulty of a "succession of doctrine" without mandated transmitters.
"An unbroken chain cannot be proven"
Another objection, historical this time: claiming that every present-day bishop descends, through a chain of ordinations without the slightest gap, from the Apostles would be unverifiable; the archives of the early centuries are full of gaps.
Answer. The Church's faith does not rest on reconstituting a complete family tree, document by document — which would indeed be impossible for antiquity. It rests on the moral certainty that the Church has always handed on the ministry through ordination, without institutional rupture: succession is a continuous and public fact, not a fragile secret. Just as one can be morally certain that a living language was handed on from generation to generation without being able to exhibit every intermediate speaker, one can be certain of the continuity of the episcopal ministry, attested by the ancient lists, universal practice, and the constant witness of the Fathers. The objection, in reality, demands a type of proof (the exhaustive archive) that ancient history supplies for no institution — without that casting doubt on their continuity.
"What about the priesthood of all the baptized?"
A theological objection: the New Testament calls all the baptized a "royal priesthood" (1 Pet 2:9). Is that not enough? Why a reserved ministerial priesthood?
Answer. The Church fully affirms the common priesthood of the faithful: every baptized person is priest, prophet, and king, called to offer his life as a spiritual sacrifice. But Scripture also knows a particular ministry — that of the Apostles and of those whom they appoint. The two priesthoods do not oppose each other: they "differ essentially and not only in degree"[32], while being ordered to one another, the ministerial priesthood being at the service of the common priesthood. The first does not abolish the second: Christ, who made all his disciples a priestly people, nevertheless chose the Twelve and instituted the Supper by saying to them "do this in remembrance of me" (Lk 22:19), entrusting them with a power he did not entrust to the crowd. The question of to whom this ministry may be entrusted is treated separately in the article on the ministerial priesthood.
The case of Anglican ordinations
One particular case illustrates the Church's rigor on validity: that of Anglican ordinations. The Anglican Communion kept the vocabulary of the episcopate and claims apostolic succession. But in 1896, in the letter Apostolicae curae, Pope Leo XIII declared these ordinations "absolutely null and utterly void"[33], on the grounds that the rite of ordination reformed in the 16th century had altered the form (the words no longer clearly expressed sacramental grace and power) and manifested a defective intention (the English Reformers rejected the sacrificial priesthood and the Eucharist as sacrifice). The resulting rupture of material succession could not, according to the Church, be repaired afterwards.
This judgment, often felt as severe, shows precisely why the Church holds succession so dear: keeping the word "bishop" and laying on hands is not enough; what is needed is the real continuity of the sacrament, with its right form and intention. Succession is not a verbal fiction: it is a precise sacramental reality.
The Orthodox: a fully recognized succession
Conversely — and this point balances the preceding one — the Catholic Church unreservedly recognizes the validity of the apostolic succession of the Orthodox and Eastern churches. Despite the rupture of communion in 1054, these churches kept intact the episcopal succession, the valid priesthood, and therefore true sacraments: their Eucharist is a true Eucharist, their priests true priests[34]. The question of the Orthodox is developed in the article What does the Church say about the Orthodox?
This double judgment — Anglican ordinations invalid, Orthodox ordinations valid — is not caprice: it shows that the criterion is neither the name nor confessional sympathy, but the objective reality of sacramental succession handed on without rupture.
A succession that is not power but service
We must, to conclude, dispel the heaviest misunderstanding. Apostolic succession is sometimes imagined as a transmission of power, a kind of sacred dynasty perpetuating domination. That is the exact opposite of what Christ willed. On the evening he institutes the Eucharist and the priesthood, Jesus washes his Apostles' feet and gives them this instruction:
"If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet." — Jesus, Jn 13:14[35]
What is handed on in apostolic succession is not a privilege: it is a charge of service, often heavy, sometimes crushing. The bishop is called servant of the servants of God. His succession links him not to a lineage of princes but to the long line of shepherds who, from Peter and Paul — presented by ancient tradition as martyred at Rome under Nero, Peter crucified head down and Paul beheaded[36] —, gave their lives for the flock.
That is, in the end, the deepest answer to our question. If the Catholic Church speaks of apostolic succession, it is not to boast of antiquity nor to lock in power: it is because she knows that Christ willed to remain present through men whom he sends as the Father sent him. Succession is God's faithfulness taking flesh in a history of fallible men — and, despite their weaknesses, bringing down to us the Gospel, the sacraments, and the living presence of the Risen One. "And lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age": apostolic succession is the way that promise keeps its word.
To go further
Notes and References
Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 862, quoting Lumen gentium 20 and Lk 10:16: "permanent likewise is the charge entrusted to the apostles of being shepherds of the Church, a charge whose perpetuity the sacred order of bishops must ensure."
1Doctrine consolidated by Saint Augustine against the Donatists (early 5th century, notably Contra epistulam Parmeniani and De baptismo contra Donatistas): the validity of the sacrament does not depend on the moral worth of the minister, for it is Christ who acts. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 1584.
2Gospel according to Saint John 20:21: "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."
3Gospel according to Saint Luke 10:16: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
4Gospel according to Saint Matthew 28:18-20. The promise "I am with you always, to the close of the age" exceeds the single generation of the Apostles present and grounds the necessity of handing on their mission.
5Acts of the Apostles 1:20, quoting Psalm 108 (109):8. The Greek episkopēn autou labetō heteros, "let another take his office (of episcopate)," is the Church's first act of succession, accomplished before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-26).
6Acts of the Apostles 14:23. The Greek verb cheirotonēsantes evokes an official appointment of elders (presbyters) by Paul and Barnabas.
7Acts of the Apostles 20:28: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers." The word rendered here as "overseers" is episkopous, "overseers / bishops," in a discourse anticipating Paul's death and the handing on of his charge.
8Second Epistle to Timothy 1:6: "For this reason I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands." The gesture of the laying on of hands is explicitly linked to the transmission of ministry.
9First Epistle to Timothy 4:14: "Do not neglect the gift of grace in you, which was given to you through a prophetic utterance, when the council of elders laid their hands upon you."
10First Epistle to Timothy 5:22: "Do not be too hasty in laying hands on anyone, nor participate in another man's sins; keep yourself pure." The warning assumes that the laying on of hands confers a real charge that cannot be granted lightly.
11Epistle to Titus 1:5: "If I left you in Crete, it was so that you might finish organizing everything and appoint elders (presbyters) in every town as I myself commanded you."
12Second Epistle to Timothy 2:2: "What you heard me say in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to trustworthy men who will be able to teach others also." Four links: Paul → Timothy → "trustworthy men" → "others"; it is the text most often invoked for apostolic succession.
13Saint Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Clement), 44:1-2, c. 96. Greek text in the Apostolic Fathers (Funk-Bihlmeyer ed.; French trans. A. Jaubert, Sources chrétiennes no. 167). The Apostles, foreseeing rivalries around the episcopate, instituted ministers and regulated their succession.
14Saint Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 42:1-4 and 44:3-6: the Apostles, sent by Christ himself sent by God, "went forth preaching... and appointed their first converts as bishops and deacons of future believers"; it is therefore unjust to depose legitimately established presbyters.
15Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (Adversus haereses), III, 3, 1, c. 180 (trans. after the Rousseau-Doutreleau ed., Sources chrétiennes no. 211). Irenaeus opposes the public succession of bishops to the alleged secret traditions of the Gnostics.
16Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, III, 3, 3. Irenaeus enumerates the bishops of Rome from Linus (established by Peter and Paul) down to Eleutherus, his contemporary, to show that "the tradition of the Apostles has come down to us" through this succession.
17Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, IV, 33, 8. True "knowledge" (gnosis) is identified with the doctrine of the Apostles handed on through the succession of bishops.
18Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum (Prescription Against Heretics), 32, c. 200. Tertullian challenges the heretics to produce the list of their bishops going back to an Apostle.
19Hegesippus, Memoirs (lost), quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, IV, 22, 3. Hegesippus is said to have drawn up a succession (diadochē) of the bishops of Rome to attest the continuity of faith.
20Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians 6:1 (c. 107, trans. P.-Th. Camelot, SC 10): "the bishop presides in the place of God," and the presbyters "in the place of the college of the Apostles"; cf. Letter to the Trallians 2:2 ("do nothing without the bishop") and 3:1 (the bishop "as Jesus Christ," the presbyters "as the sanhedrin of God"). Ignatius attests the episcopal structure very early, without yet elaborating the theory of succession as Irenaeus does.
21Second Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution Dei verbum (1965), 7: "But in order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, handing over to them their 'own teaching office.'"
22 28Cf. Second Vatican Council, decree Unitatis redintegratio (1964), 22: the communities born of the Reformation, "especially because of the defect of the sacrament of Orders, [...] have not preserved the proper and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery." The judgment is doctrinal, not contemptuous: it notes a lack, while recognizing valid baptism.
23Council of Trent, session 23 (15 July 1563), Doctrine and canons on the sacrament of Orders, canon 3, in H. Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, no. 1773 (old Dz 963).
24Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§ 1581-1582: Orders, like Baptism and Confirmation, imprints an indelible spiritual character and can be neither repeated nor conferred temporarily.
25Council of Trent, session 23 (1563), canons 4, 6, and 7, in Denzinger, nos. 1774, 1776-1777: existence of a hierarchy of divine right composed of bishops, priests, and ministers; bishops are superior to priests and can confer Orders.
26Second Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium (1964), 20: "Therefore this Sacred Synod teaches that the bishops, by divine institution, succeed to the place of the Apostles as shepherds of the Church, so that he who hears them hears Christ, and he who rejects them rejects Christ and him who sent him (cf. Lk 10:16)." Cf. also Lumen gentium 21 on the fullness of the sacrament of Orders conferred by episcopal consecration.
27 31Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§ 861-862, quoting Lumen gentium 20: the Apostles left their collaborators as successors, with the charge of completing and consolidating their work.
29Leo XIII, apostolic letter Apostolicae curae (13 September 1896): the ordinations conferred according to the reformed Anglican rite are declared "absolutely null and utterly void" (irritas prorsus fuisse et esse omninoque nullas), for defect of form and intention.
30 33Second Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium (1964), 10: "The common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood, which differ essentially and not only in degree, are nevertheless ordered to one another [...]."
32Second Vatican Council, decree Unitatis redintegratio (1964), 15: these churches, "although separated, have true sacraments — above all, by apostolic succession: the priesthood and the Eucharist — which unite them intimately to us."
34Gospel according to Saint John 13:14. The washing of the feet, placed on the evening of the Supper at which the Eucharist and the priesthood are instituted, gives the meaning of the apostolic ministry: a service, not domination (cf. Mt 20:25-28).
35Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, II, 25 (Nero's persecution at Rome, with the testimonies of Dionysius of Corinth and the Roman priest Caius concerning the "trophies" — tropaia — of the Apostles at the Vatican and on the Ostian Way) and III, 1, 2: according to Origen (Commentary on Genesis, III), Peter, having come to Rome, was there crucified head down, at his own request, and Paul suffered martyrdom under Nero (summary after the English ANF translation, to be checked against the Sources chrétiennes edition). Cf. Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, 36: at Rome, Peter underwent a passion like that of his Lord, and Paul received the crown by a death like that of John (John the Baptist, beheaded; summary after the English ANF translation).
36