An Ecclesiological Lemma

Apostolic Succession

It has long been held, by Christians, that there is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. For 1500 years this was the orthodox, accepted view, and even to this day the majority of practising Christians belong to a denomination which subscribes to this article of faith, expressed in the Nicene Creed. Of course, while voting may have Biblical precedent, I am not trying to claim that one can arrive at some sort of objective truth on the basis of “majority rules”. In fact, in general, I am not expecting to convince anyone (even myself) with the logic I detail here; I am merely presenting a possible view of the world and explaining why it might be popular or appealing.

The word “apostolic” in this creed, though, is almost as contentious as the word “catholic”, so I will explain the meaning I am giving to it. If one starts from the premise that Jesus is God (and so acts like a root certificate or trust anchor), then an inductive process can be started where firstly the apostles are appointed by Jesus, and then the apostles appoint other people with the laying on of hands, and there is a continuation of laying on of hands until the position of bishop becomes clearly defined. It is then established that a bishop can only be appointed by other bishops, with the laying on of hands, and this principle of succession among bishops was already well accepted by the time of Tertullian (circa 200 AD).

Unless it can be shown that this definition of “apostolic” has always been wrong, or that the laying on of hands was never a foundational Christian doctrine, then it seems that the Church should have this property. Thus the “true” Church is partially defined as being a group of people consisting of apostolically succeeded bishops, ministers ordained by them, and their congregations. Whether the congregants must be baptised by these ministers to be members of the Church, or must be confirmed, or regular receivers of the Eucharist is another matter and beyond the scope of this discussion. It should, however, be noted that none of the preceding is meant to imply that Christians outside of this group are somehow inferior. Other Christians are still free to call their organisational structure a “Church” even if it is not “apostolic” in the sense described. There is still “one” Church, though, in the sense that one Church can be chosen as the closest to God’s plan for the institution on Earth, and this will be the “true” Church.

Communion

There is still the question of which apostolically valid Church is the “true” Church, when Churches can act completely independently of each other. It is possible that on a spiritual level, there is a single Church which all Christians are part of and that Church is the body of Christ. This would apply even to Christians who are not part of congregations or who do not have bishops, let alone apostolic ones. Unfortunately, on a visible, earthly, fallible level, things are not this simple, as different organisations do not recognise each other as being part of the “true” Church. Presumably God would be capable of transcending any human barriers such as this, but things get complicated when a Church uses the Biblically-sanctioned process of excommunication in a way which splits that Church into two or more smaller Churches which are not in communion with each other.

The issue of “being in communion with” is a very serious one, and seems that on an earthly level, if two Churches excommunicate each others’ members then there is no sense in which those members can still be part of the same Church, by definition. If excommunication is to mean anything, then, and just like the laying on of hands it is one of the most well-established doctrines concerning the Church, a choice must be made between two or more Churches which are out of communion with each other. The only extra edge case to consider is that of two Churches where Church A feels it is in communion with Church B, but Church B has excommunicated Church A. In practice this is quite common, as two acts of excommunication are not likely to happen simultaneously.

Fortunately, the view point I am putting forward in this lemma provides a consistent way of looking at all these problems. It again uses an inductive approach, in which you first consider that Jesus said that the Church was built on top of the apostle Peter, and the other apostles were in communion with him, and the Church stayed in communion with itself as it grew. Then, when the Church first excommunicated someone, this is to be considered as a branch into two Churches, with the excommunicator and excommunicatee both being potential inheritors of the status as the “true” Church. To determine which of these two Churches does inherit this status, the doctrines of the two Churches must be considered. Usually it will be a matter of doctrine that will cause the excommunication, but in any case, no two people or groups of people are exactly the same and a judgement must be made based on doctrine or practice between these two Churches.

Of course, there can be later excommunications and schisms, even among the Churches which are on the losing side of these doctrinal splits. As each side of a split thinks it is in the right, there could well be Churches that are in the right on 9 of the last 10 splits, even the most recent 9, but having been in the wrong on one split, the mantle of the “true” Church has not followed them. Note also that my inductive approach extends to multiple and even simultaneous excommunications. If, at a given instant in time (or at points so close together in time that a given Christian is not able to determine which event came first) factions within a Church perform an arbitrary number of (mutual or one-sided) excommunications between each other, then the Church left standing as the “true” Church is that which had the most correct doctrine at that moment.

Furthermore, if among the factions resulting from an excommunication event there are two or more Churches which have not declared themselves out of communion with each other, then they could collectively become the “true” Church. Similarly, a single “true” Church could split (organisationally) into two or more Churches at any time and not lose its status. However, if an excommunication happens within Church A which is in communion with Churches B and C, and these together form the “true” Church, and the factions of A are A’ and A”, then the “true” Church will either be A’ + B + C or A” + B + C, assuming that the excommunication was just between A’ and A”. Considering the opposite direction, two Churches can enter into communion with each other, undoing any excommunication, and if one of those Churches was the “true” Church then both Churches can be considered part of the “true” Church.

Conclusion

Starting from the earliest days of the Church, then, it could be argued that two unbroken, intertwined chains have followed down into the present day, and the Church or Churches at the end of those chains can be considered the “true” Church. It would of course be less than ideal if the “true” Church consisted of two or more Churches that are in communion with each other but have separate hierarchies and organisations, but perhaps this would reflect what a powerful thing ecclesiological communion is, that it can straddle denominational boundaries. A Christian would then have the freedom to choose which of these denominations is the most helpful to them, just like choosing a congregation within a denomination. There is one remaining question, however: If a Christian were not part of a congregation belonging to the “true” Church, would they have to vote with their feet by joining one, to align the visible “true” Church with the spiritual, invisible “true” Church?