Refutation of Dr. Steven Nemes

New blog on the kid: Refutation of Dr. Steven Nemes · I Heard the Cardinal Zen had Taken on Michael Lofton · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Michael Lofton on Marcel Lefebvre, Me on Both and on Pope Michael · Sola Scriptura is NOT My Position · Michael Lofton Responded to Cardinal Zen · Great Bishop of Geneva! Blunder, Gendron!

My citations of his original may exceed the percentage for fair use. Sorry, but not very sorry. His video is at the bottom.

I'm going to be uh presenting on 0:09 the subject the myth of apostolic succession I'm going to be arguing that 0:15 the earliest evidence that we have for a notion of apostolic succession in the 0:21 Catholic or Proto-Catholic churches does not support the conception of apostolic succession that you find in 0:27 for example modern Roman Catholic the theology or Eastern Orthodox or Anglican theology as well

Yeah!

Protestant goes to Tradition and forgets the Bible!

It is true, in a banale way, that the apostolic succession in a see mentioned by early Church Fathers is sth else than the apostolic succession we speak of when a bishop A consecrating bishops B, C and D, has these for Apostolic Succession (e g Williamson, Tissier de Mallerais, Galareta and Fellay are the Apostolic Succession of Archbishop Lefebvre) and each of them has him closest in their Episcopal Lineage.

However, the latter exists in the Bible.

Sts Barnabas and Paul had Simon Niger and a few more in their Episcopal Lineage, while St. Paul had Sts Timothy and Titus in their Apostolic Succession.

the notion of apostolic succession is essential to the 1:23 Roman Catholic Church's self-conception the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church claim to possess theological authority over Christians 1:30 because they are the successors of the Apostles

Yes.

the apostles took care to appoint successors 4:52 because they knew that their mission had to continue to the end of the world um it's hard to 4:59 uh reconcile this idea with the suggestion that the apostles were expecting the world to end within their 5:06 lifetime um or that the apostles maybe died before you know being able to enact uh 5:13 appoint successors um they probably thought of themselves as being you know 5:19 if if you're expecting that the world is going to end during your lifetime and your death comes upon you suddenly I don't think you have the the frame of 5:25 mind or even the concern to you know appoint successors.

Great! He argues from the idea that the first Christians were wrong about when the world was ending, but even worse, the idea that their Church structure so reflected this that it was a fleeting thing, like Burning Man.

they not only had helpers in their Ministry but also in order that the mission assigned to 5:38 them might continue after their death they passed on to their immediate Cooperators as it were in the form of a testament the duty of confirming and 5:45 finishing the work begun by themselves recommending to them that they attend to the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit 5:51 placed them to Shepherd the Church of God they therefore appointed such men and gave them the order that when they 5:58 should have died other approved man would take up their Ministry

Pretty closely matches what St. Paul is teaching two of his successors in the Pastorals!

Here he cites a source on Catholic doctrine:

in the practice of both the Church of the East and of the West it is clear 9:03 that by means of the imposition of hands and the words of consecration the grace of the holy spirit is so conferred and 9:09 the sacred character so impressed that Bishops in an eminent and visible way sustain the roles of Christ himself as 9:14 teacher Shepherd and high priest and that they acts in his person therefore 9:19 it pertains to the Bishops to admit newly elected members into the Episcopal 9:25 Body by means of the sacrament of orders let me read that last sentence one more time there therefore it pertains to the 9:31 Bishops to admit newly elected members into the Episcopal poy by means of the sacrament of 9:39 orders

Again, matches Pastorals. Timothy had the sacrament from Paul, and handed it on, and the sacrament is expressed by the laying on of hands and confers grace.

Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men's sins. Keep thyself chaste
[1 Timothy 5:22]
For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands
[2 Timothy 1:6]

If it didn't confer also some kind of special authority, why would St. Paul add "neither be partaker of other men's sins"?

He's basically saying, because ordination confers authority, the one who lays hand on an unworthy candidate is an enabler who pushes victims into the way of an abuser.

Precisely as Dr. Steven Nemes in the following minutes characterises episcopacy, the Bible describes it. The Father has sent Jesus Who sends the Twelve (John 20, Matthew 28), these then select others and initiate them. While St. Paul was selected by Jesus as Apostle, he was initiated as bishop by Simon Niger and a few more (Acts 13). Now he is going to make his observation:

no 10:38 one can become a bishop unless made one by another bishop or by an apostle ... the last point 11:43 there from this it follows that every true Bishop should be capable of tracing his consecration back to an apostle by means of other duly consecrated Bishops 11:50 um this is the big important part okay because if you were consecrated Bishop 11:55 by somebody who's not a bishop then you're not really a bishop in Roman Catholic theology and also in the the Theology of Eastern 12:01 Orthodoxy and um traditional anglicanism so this is the important part this also 12:07 is I think the myth of apostolic succession now one principal reason why I am not a Roman Catholic or an Anglo-12:14 Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox for that matter is that I believe that this notion of apostolic succession is12:19 mythical

He is now going to prove the point by ignoring the Bible as the very earliest source and call Church Fathers "the earliest sources" ..

there is a notion of apostolic succession in the earliest sources but 12:24 it is not the doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church presents and which these other communions also take for granted 12:31 more specifically there is not only no evidence in favor of the proposition that all Bishops can trace their 12:36 consecration by means of other duly consecrated Bishops back to an apostle but there is also some considerable 12:42 evidence to the contrary

He will now ignore the Gospels, Acts and Pastorals as earliest source.

no early Source says that a bishop can only made such by an apostle or another Bishop so 13:02 this idea is nowhere to be found in the early sources at least so far as I can tell if I'm wrong somebody can prove me 13:07 wrong um the second Point some early sources seem to imply that not all 13:12 Bishops were made such by other Bishops

As the Bible has already outlined Apostolic Succession in the modern sense of the word, and as it was being practised all over the field, it's no big deal if the doctrine finds no distinct mention but is implied with another doctrine, like that of series pastorum, as guardians of tradition.

Now, I'll skip forward to where he pretends a source will imply that some bishops were made such, but not by anyone already a bishop.

But OK, first he comments adversely on First Clement.

so there are a lot of things to say here about first Clement 18:44 but let's notice what does he what does it explicitly say it says that the apostles appointed Bishops and 18:49 deacons uh it says that they made the office of Bishop and Deacon permanent now this seems ridiculous to me if you 18:56 if you are aware of the um eschatological expectations of the early church and the fact that Jesus and 19:03 the apostles and Paul and all the rest of them were anticipating that Christ would return in their own lifetime

Yeah, right, the idea that the first Christians expected to see the world end in their own lifetime ...

I think that 19:26 this is just um a story that that Clement is making up here I don't think that there's any reason to believe it

And his own idea of the ideas of the first Christians isn't somehow made up by some modern theologian?

But if this idea is not true, there is no remaining reason to stamp Clement's actual claim as untrue.

Ha, meanwhile I actually got to the point where he claims that he has early proof against "only a bishop can make a bishop" ...

here's another thing he says if the Bishops 19:39 appointed by the apostles should die other people should take their place so there always has to be a bishop in place 19:44 and a bishop can have been appointed either by the apostles or by other reputable men with the consent of the 19:50 whole church now this seems to imply that a bishop could be made such by someone who isn't a bishop because maybe 19:56 your Bishop dies and there's no one else around to consecrate him but a bishop 20:02 can be appointed by reputable men with the consent of the whole church

Pope Michael was appointed bishop of Rome in 1990, on July 16th, Our Lady of Carmel. He was consecrated bishop in 2011 or since it was already Advent, the Gaudete weekend, Saturday and the next day being Third Lord's Day of Advent, in the Church year 2012. This delay, whether you hold the claim he was really elected as true or as false, should illustrate the difference between appointment and consecration.

now so what Clement says is that a bishop may have been appointed by an 20:21 apostle or by reputable men with the consent of the whole church what does Clement not say he does 20:29 not say that a bishop must be able to trace his consecration back to an apostle either directly or indirectly by 20:34 means of other duly consecrated Bishops

No, but the Pastorals in the Bible make it very clear. St. Timothy could lay hands on people (I Tim 5:22) because St. Paul had laid hands on him (II Tim 1:6). St. Paul could do this because Simon Niger and others had laid hands on him and on Barnabas (Acts 13).

it has to be um a project that everyone 21:02 can get on board with right but it doesn't have to be a bishop making the person a bishop

Again, conflating appointment with consecration.

Now, the pastorals had already spoken of the consecration. The appointment procedure actually did see some modifications while the Apostles were living, and most notably, whatever city St. Peter had first been bishop in (Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome) or where St. Paul had planted the first local bishop (St. Paul planting St. Timothy in Thessalonica) needed procedures for appointing of bishops after that. This means these procedures are of human origin. This is why the procedures both for papal elections and for other episcopal elections in the West have been modified.

he could have written that himself uh that would have also notably 21:19 that would have invalidated the Corinthian Rebels from the very start because if they suddenly declared 21:24 themselves Bishops he could have just said from the beginning you are not Bishops since no Bishop ordained you

But what if the rebel bishop DID get a valid consecration? As I recall Second Clement, once he has submitted, there is a recommendation of receiving him elsewhere ... meaning he had a kind of episcopal charge, not that of Corinth, he could not just get back into the laity. In other words, he probably was validly but illicitly consecrated. Obviously, some Protestants have theorised Second Clement is a forgery ... this means they have more motives than the one that Second Clement doesn't come in obvious response to an already given demand for mediation. Their ways of "proving" books forgeries which are accepted by Tradition have obviously been reused in polemics against the Four Gospels.

I would say that the fact that the Corinthians deposed Bishops already shows that they did not have the notion 21:55 that a bishop had to be made such by another Bishop

Dr. Steven Nemes is presumably doctor in Theology some place. It is abundantly clear that he does not care or grasp the distinction between appointment and ordination / consecration.

I think there is very good evidence that the apostles were not talking with each other um one strong 23:15 piece of evidence is the fact that there are competing traditions in early Christianity about when to some when to 23:20 celebrate Easter um there is evidence in papius uh I mentioned in my earlier video a couple weeks ago or a week or 23:27 two ago uh that papus seems to know a few of Jesus's disciples but he intentionally ignores Paul

If Papias or his source, as he said, was around where the Twelve were speaking together (if there was any such place after Jerusalem), the consequence is he was not around where St. Paul was.

Acts 9:26—28 And when he was come into Jerusalem, he essayed to join himself to the disciples; and they all were afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and told them how he had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken to him; and how in Damascus he had dealt confidently in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out in Jerusalem, and dealing confidently in the name of the Lord.

Galatians 1:17—19 Neither went I to Jerusalem, to the apostles who were before me: but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord.

um there is 23:34 simply no evidence I think that the apostles were always talking with each other and Consulting with each other and 23:39 doing things as a group

There is a reason St. Peter is not counted as the first bishop of Jerusalem. Acts 1 says the Eleven were all together when St. Matthias was chosen as New Twelfth, and Acts 2:43, 44 And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. This does not include St. Paul.

now we should not read too much into this verb Koto because it's 25:09 the word that's used for ordination and so on in uh modern uh Greek and in in 25:16 Byzantine Greek the verb means stretching out one's hand to vote at in an assembly okay so uh what 25:25 the what the D is suggesting is vote for yourselves who's going to be the bishop 25:30 and the Deacon in your churches okay that's what it says you cannot read too much into the verb hoto which is an old 25:36 Greek verb um what does the did not say notice that the person's chosen to be 25:42 Bishops it does not say that the person's chosen to be Bishops must be consecrated by Apostles or by other Bishops who can trace their consecration 25:49 back to Apostles that idea doesn't come up at all not only that the fact that these churches are being told to appoint 25:55 Bishops implies that they did not already have any if there were already a successional Episcopal system in place 26:01 in the churches there would be no need to tell them to appoint Bishops because they would be doing it already Okay so this successional Episcopal system of 26:08 the sort that Roman cathology Roman Catholic uh Roman Catholic theology envisions

We are still on First Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. Three hypotheses are perfectly available.

• the quarrel about the rebel bishop involved a break with ensuing confusion
• St. Clement reminded them of things they perfectly well knew
• St. Paul having formed Corinth, they were not sure if their rules matched that of "mainline Apostolic," so needed confirmation about it.

Now he reads a passage from St. Irenaeus, book 3. Since he will argue another time that Presbyters and Episcopi are identic in Irenaeus, I'll answer another time.

there are a lot of things we can talk about here in Irenaeus um I address irus at length in my book Theology of the Manifest and also in my book 37:35 Orthodoxy and heresy but what can we say about Irenaeus here first of all what does he say he says that the apostles 37:42 appointed successors in the churches that they founded uh he says that they were careful in choosing their successors since the teaching had to be 37:48 passed on accurately for future Generations these successors passed down the apostles teachings in the from the 37:54 beginning and at least in some cases these successors can be named the apostolic succession thus in Irenaeus is 38:01 primarily about the succession of the apostolic teaching it's being passed down from one person to the next the 38:07 responsibility of the bishop in Irenaeus

Yes, as mentioned St. Irenaeus is giving the important byproduct of apostolic succession that a series pastorum is. It's the Bible itself that gives apostolic succession as the term is now understood. Local bishop is one main function that a consecrated bishop can have, and the one that usually (Paris 1920 was an exceptional breakdown) is most important for maintaining Apostolic Tradition.

So, St. Irenaeus never makes the actual argument that a bishop to be a bishop needs to have consecration going back to the Apostles, instead he makes the argument that a local bishop to be a local bishop needs to have a series pastorum going back to the Apostles. Dr. Nemes will say that that ...

strongly suggests that the concept of the episcopate was different in his day 39:39 people the the the understanding of the place of the bishop and how you can become a bishop and Etc it was just 39:45 different in those days than it was for than it is in later Roman Catholic theology

When did it change?

He's willing to posit change from indirect evidence, but is very evasive about when the change is supposed to have happened, and how.

and the reason why is because 39:51 he has a very easy um you know bulletproof argument to make against the 39:57 Heretics if he did think that the episcopate was a closed Circle and the only way into it was to be welcomed into 40:02 it by somebody who's already in he never makes that kind of argument a few notes about irenaeus here 40:08 I don't believe him when he says that he can list the succession of the Bishops and all the churches founded by the apostles I don't believe that for a 40:14 second um I think actually that we do not know what happened or at 40:21 least not with very much Clarity what happened to most of the Apostles where they ended up how they taught there are later Traditions I think these are all 40:26 made up

Again, when were the original events forgotten and how were these traditions replacing the original one?

It's kind of a case of Mormonism positing a Great Apostasy just after the Apostles died, but it's really a case against Christianity he's making.

Scholars doubt the veracity of the Roman succession list that he 41:28 supplies it's contradicted by for example Tertullian and other figures who have 41:34 Clement being made the first Bishop of Rome not Linus

A list can be veracious even if it is not inerrant. It can have a fault or oversight without being made up.

The lists starting with Clement (after Peter and Paul, I presume) would not really prove a time gap between Sts Peter and Paul and Clement, just a gap in the transmission of the tradition. Given the acts of Clement about Corinth, he's vastly more colourful than Linus and Cletus, which would explain how these were forgotten.

um and it's notable that 41:39 Irenaeus only lists succession lists uh from communities with which he was closely associated in his own time um so 41:48 he mentions Polycarp in Smyrna um he mentions 41:54 Rome I don't he he says that you can do this for all the church but I think that's just Bluster I think he's making 41:59 that up I don't think it's true at all

How about this: he could not do it for all of the churches personally, but he knew other churches could equally supply their series pastorum. Without reading his words, I think he would be using "we" rather than "I" here.

Dr. Nemes is so cocksure of the Protestantism for which he needs to disprove the idea of Apostolic Succession, that he's casting suspicions on the honesty of a very early Church Father and Martyr. That attitude stinks worse than the rotting lice in parts of my scalp. Apart from throwing doubts on Christianity.

There is another probable reason why Tertullian (whom Nemes now cites) should be regarded as mistaken in making Clement the first successor of Peter:

the Church of Rome which makes Clement to have been ordained in 45:32 like manner by Peter in exactly the same way the other churches like exhibit their several worthies whom as having 45:38 been appointed to their Episcopal places by Apostles

Very likely, Clement was not named immediate successor, but received ordination or consecration of some sort from St. Peter himself. Three possibilities:

• Clement received consecration as bishop without immediately receiving a see
• Clement was ordained as a presbyter (these two could combine as presbyters in some cities regularly being directly consecrated bishops back then)
• Clement was first in another see (not recorded)

However, Dr. Nemes will misconstrue this in this way, but first note what he quotes from Tertullian:

he says that 47:27 it's possible to name the succession of Bishops and all the churches founded by the apostles in the 47:32 cities what else does he say he says that there are churches which cannot derive their founding to an apostle or 47:37 an Apostolic man and yet are considered properly Apostolic because of their Doctrine if the Bishops of these 47:44 churches had to be consecrated by other Bishops whose consecration could be traced back to an apostle then they 47:50 would have been able to derive their founding to an apostle or to an Apostolic man so notice he's he is not 47:55 giving an argument here that he would give if this notion of the episcopate was the same in tulan as earlier um if 48:01 tertullian thought that every person who is a who is a a legitimate Bishop had to be duly consecrated by another Bishop 48:08 who could trace his consecration back to an apostle if that was the notion of apostolic succession at play he would have made this argument but he does not

What this boils down to is really that Tertullian is, like Irenaeus, discussing the series pastorum aspect, not what we would call apostolic succession.

And the reason for the preference is pretty obvious. It's easier to say that André Vingt-Trois came after Jean-Marie Lustiger (in a probably no longer fully apostolic doctrine, see the Paris break in 1920 and the Rome break in 1962-65), than to say that Lustiger was consecrated by Cardinal Marty or that he himself consecrated (?) Vingt-Trois.

The consecrations (which Sedevacantists would put in doubt due to change in rite) were two days, 14 October 1988 and the former one on 8 December 1979. The occupations (apparent) of the archsee were 1981 to 2005, 2005 to 2017, 24 and 12 full years.

Tertullian and Irenaeus were not taking their argument from what's more important, but from what's more apparent.

there are churches being founded in the present day which cannot derive their founder 48:22 back to the apostles but what makes them to be Apostolic is the fact that they agree with the apostolic churches in Doctrine 48:27 so this seems to imply that a bishop did not have to be made such by another Apostle by an apostle or by another 48:32 Bishop

Again, Dr. Nemes is dense for a supposed Dr. of Theology. Or he's really looking for excuses.

The first bishop of, for instance, Tours, St. Gatian, was not named or consecrated bishop by the Apostles, and he was also not named bishop of Tours by a previous bishop of Tours. B U T, he had been consecrated in Rome by Pope St. Fabian.

According to Christian historians,[2] during the consulship of the Emperor Decius and Vettius Gratus (250 AD), Pope Fabian sent out seven bishops from Rome to Gaul to preach the Gospel: Gatianus to Tours, Trophimus to Arles, Paul to Narbonne, Saturnin to Toulouse, Denis to Paris, Austromoine to Clermont, and Martial to Limoges. A community of Christians had already existed for many years in Lyon, where Irenaeus had been bishop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatianus_of_Tours

Which brings us to the question, was the first bishop of Paris Denis the Areopagite or Denis sent by Pope Fabian?

I would say, there were two Denis in Paris, first the Areopagite, then the Church was left without residing bishop for some century, then refounded as a see by Denis sent by Pope Fabian.

So, Denis (II?) of Paris, as well as Gatian of Tours could trace their consecration back, they were not first bishops in their episcopal lineages, but only in their series pastorum.

at this time Apostolic Doctrine by itself is the sufficient for 48:40 apostolicity

Overreading. Apostolic doctrine certainly makes up for a series pastorum that doesn't go back to the Apostles, but it's not stated and it's elsewhere counterstated what Dr. Nemes seems to imagine, that it could as easily make up for an episcopal lineage not going back to the apostles.

now what does Tertullian not say he does not say that a bishop must be able to trace his consecration 48:46 back to an Apostle by means of other Bishops who can do the same

No, but St. Paul had basically made that point.

but he does not say that all the Bishops in that succession have to be consecrated by 49:47 another person who's already a bishop um or by an apostle

Actually, an Apostle who's not yet a bishop (Paul in Acts 9 to beginning of 13) could not do so ...

The reason he doesn't do so is that the series pastorum is more visible than the succession of consecrations.

If the recent archbishops of Paris had been presumed valid, the 24 years 1981 to 2005 are more visible than the one date 8 December 1979; the 12 years 2005 to 2017 are more visible than the one date 14 October 1988.

none of these early 51:00 sources say that a person can only be a bishop if he's made such by another bishop or by an apostle nobody says this

Is this one early enough?

And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also
[2 Timothy 2:2]

At least for the training of the teaching office this clearly is so, and presumably therefore as to the consecration as well. There is a reason why modernist Protestants (like Evangelische Kirche in Prussia / German II Empire) have, since the 19th C. pretended the Pastorals are not by St. Paul.

each Source here suggests some of them more strongly than 51:13 others that people were being made Bishops without being consecrated by other Bishops

None of them do, except by the misreading of a Protestant who thinks that appointment and consecreation are the same. Perhaps a natural mistake within a human tradition where no one is consecrated bishop without being appointed bishop, no one ordained priest without being appointed priest of some charge, but as to readings of ancient sources, this is not even natural as a misreading.

And he's going to repeat his conclusion. This wrong conclusion.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Feast of the Most Precious Blood
1.VII.2024

PS, his name corrected after publication, I always instinctively use ph, when sometimes it's v./HGL

The myth of apostolic succession in Roman Catholic doctrine
Dr. Steven Nemes | 27 juin 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Txmhl64bKY