Apostolic Succession

[Volkmar]

Because your church does not have direct historical continuity with the Church Christ founded, does not administer the Sacraments, and does not have the full apostolic deposit of the faith.

What church or chruches fall under these quidelines? Im not sure understand what you are saying here.

Any churches which do not have bishops in true apostolic succession (both in history and in doctrine), and which do not have true administration of the sacraments.

The above quotes found in the "desire to be accurate" thread caused me to think about the "apostolic" as the usage is emerging in some sectors of the "Protestant" movement.

Enter a web search for "apostolic network" and see how many thousands of results are returned.

In a church I recently was a member of, an imperative was for the congregation to become a part of an "apostolic network".  In the past five years three different "networks" were investigated.

Here's my point...

I find it interesting that man "non-denominational" churches are now feeling compelled to become a part of "something larger".  It strikes me as something of a re-inventing-the-wheel redivius.


V

[janine]

Anyone who claims uninterrupted apostolic succession isounds deluded to me.  That would be just as verifiable as uninterrupted Jewish Temple Priesthood succession claims.

At the very least, even if you could somehow claim an uninterrupted line of guy-to-guy-to-guy succession, you could not claim that they were all right with God all the way down, each bearing his full load of Apostolic Spiritual Oomph.





(Edited to stop myself from calling adherents of the theory of apostolic succession "deluded".  Better to say they sound deluded.  Wouldn't want to descend to name-calling.)

[da525382]

Agreed, Janine..........

I have a problem with historical disputes.....We don't know the whole story when over history "heretics" have been murdered and erased from the memory of the earth.  We are left with what the winners, the murderers, have propagated, or "laundered" through time.  It just seems weak on reliability to me.

Don

[Jimbob]

Reading Galatians last night, it's interesting to see what Paul said about the folks in Jerusalem at the meeting in Acts 15:

Galatians 2:6

The American Standard Version
    But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's person)-- they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me:
     
The New American Standard Bible
    But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.
     
Holy Bible, The New Living Translation
    And the leaders of the church who were there had nothing to add to what I was preaching. (By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to me, for God has no favorites.)
     
THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language
    As for those who were considered important in the church, their reputation doesn't concern me. God isn't impressed with mere appearances, and neither am I. And of course these leaders were able to add nothing to the message I had been preaching.
     
The King James Version (Authorized)
    But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
     
The New Revised Standard Version
    And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) - those leaders contributed nothing to me.
     
Holman Christian Standard Bible®
    But from those recognized as important (what they really were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism ) -- those recognized as important added nothing to me.
     
Holy Bible, English Standard Version
    And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) - those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.
     
The Complete Jewish Bible
    Moreover, those who were the acknowledged leaders-what they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by outward appearances - these leaders added nothing to me.

Maybe that provides insight, maybe not.  Interesting, nonetheless.

[l.a.providence]

I wonder about the catholic faith....

maybe in reforming so much, we have rebelled to the point of rebelling against some parts of truth we need to keep.......

i analyze people alot.... i do this because i was brought up that way...my father was a systems analyst for the govt.... and i think that spilled over into his personal life...
i sort of adapted some of it...

anyway, the methodists in my views...seem to put out some leadership qualities that we in the COC need.....also find many beautiful singing women and they're probably methodists.

BUT..we're talking about catholic....

I seem to notice some real quality people in the catholic faith.... people with humility and GREAT CHARACTER... people possibly not wanting to be GREAT but just to have a good quality life.  I find this admirable...

Not sure we should dope the catholics or their christianity....

maybe their is something to succession... you know, they don't follow martin luther....

we just may be following a zealot who needs a little something that he so hard fought against....

[janine]

Like he needs an indulgence?

[BrianInChrist]

Agreed, Janine..........

I have a problem with historical disputes.....We don't know the whole story when over history "heretics" have been murdered and erased from the memory of the earth.  We are left with what the winners, the murderers, have propagated, or "laundered" through time.  It just seems weak on reliability to me.

Don

That's true.  It isn't just intentional past purging of documents from posterity, though.  Many books were destroyed in the wake of battles, some by barbarians and some more civilized.  And out of control fires and floods destroyed books as well.  Unless one assumes that all of these events were directed by God in order to purify the doctrine in the church, I would question the use of uninspired ancient sources.  And if one does assume that all of these events were directed by God to purify the doctrine in the church, I would ask why the Christian world is currently so divided?

[spurly]

I wonder about the catholic faith....

maybe in reforming so much, we have rebelled to the point of rebelling against some parts of truth we need to keep.......

I'm not an advocate of apostolic succession, but your statement above is true even apart from that discussion.

Often when people rebel, they rebel not only against what they considered to be the evil part of what they are rebelling against, but they also rebel against the good - just assuming that it must be evil too.  They assume that if they are evil or wrong in one area then they must be wrong in all areas and in so doing they throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Volkmar]

I've noticed some good, interesting comments up to this point, but they aren't to "the point"...and that may well be a result of my failure to articulate.

Here, repeated, is what I'm asking us to think about...

The above quotes found in the "desire to be accurate" thread caused me to think about the "apostolic" as the usage is emerging in some sectors of the "Protestant" movement.

I'm not so much concerned about "Apostolic succession", though it is certainly part of the discussion.  (BTW, CD has made several comments about this that are educational and pertinent, and, I have no problem with Apostolic succession as explained by CD...tracing that succession in the E. Orthodox tradition is much, much easier than present day Cohen's tracing their priestly linage.)  My main concern is the rise of the apostolic within our present day non-Catholic/Orthodox traditions.


V

[Volkmar]

I wonder about the catholic faith....

maybe in reforming so much, we have rebelled to the point of rebelling against some parts of truth we need to keep.......

i analyze people alot.... i do this because i was brought up that way...my father was a systems analyst for the govt.... and i think that spilled over into his personal life...
i sort of adapted some of it...

anyway, the methodists in my views...seem to put out some leadership qualities that we in the COC need.....also find many beautiful singing women and they're probably methodists.

BUT..we're talking about catholic....

I seem to notice some real quality people in the catholic faith.... people with humility and GREAT CHARACTER... people possibly not wanting to be GREAT but just to have a good quality life.  I find this admirable...

Not sure we should dope the catholics or their christianity....

maybe their is something to succession... you know, they don't follow martin luther....

we just may be following a zealot who needs a little something that he so hard fought against....

L.A.,

Good point.  We all are "following" some one(s) in the past who "blazed the trail".  Yeah, I know we all FOLLOW JESUS, and He really is the only One that should be followed, but everyone of us were born into some Tradition which had the effect of causing us to look at the "trail" from a particular perspective (or maybe we rebelled and took a fork in the trail?).  Most who hang out at this site were born into a similar tradition, myself included. 

I think it would be good to differentiate between Apostolic Succession and what is arising in our  non-Catholic traditions known as "The Apostolic".  Anyone(s) with experience in this that can contribute their wisdom?


V

[BrianInChrist]

V,

In my experience, those Protestant apostolic groups mean something very different by "apostle" than the rest of the Christian world does.  By "apostle" they mean "messenger". As far as I know, they don't claim that their apostles have received divine inspiration to write Scripture, for example.

[Jimbob]

Yeah, there's an "apostle" here in town that claims a Pauline apostleship.  He makes no claim of succession, just to your tithe.  Funnily enough, he calls his congregation "The Bible Church of Christ"...his ties to the CofCsof are as "strong" as his ties to any sort of apostolic succession.

[BrianInChrist]

In my experience, the Protestant apostlic groups are more Petrine than Pauline.  That is, they focus on existing Christians rather than in aggressively expanding the Kingdom.

[Bon Voyage]

Yeah, there's an "apostle" here in town that claims a Pauline apostleship.  He makes no claim of succession, just to your tithe.  Funnily enough, he calls his congregation "The Bible Church of Christ"...his ties to the CofCsof are as "strong" as his ties to any sort of apostolic succession.

Maybe he "restored" the New Testament church and that is his tie to being an "Apostle."

[CDHealy]

As an attempt to correct some misunderstandings of apostolic succession evidenced in this thread.

From OrthodoxWiki

It is through the doctrine of Apostolic Succession that the Orthodox Christian Church maintains that it is the spiritual successor to the original body of believers in Christ that was composed of the Apostles. This succession manifests itself through the unbroken succession of its bishops back to the apostles.

The unbrokenness of apostolic succession is significant because of Jesus Christ's promise that the "gates of hell" (Matthew 16:18) would not prevail against the Church, and his promise that he himself would be with the apostles to "the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20). According to this interpretation, a complete disruption or end of such apostolic succession would mean that these promises were not kept as would an apostolic succession which, while formally intact, completely abandoned the teachings of the Apostles and their immediate successors; as, for example, if all the bishops of the world agreed to abrogate the Nicene Creed or repudiate the Holy Scripture.

The Orthodox believe that their teachings today are the same as or are in essential harmony with the teaching of the first apostles. This form of the doctrine was formulated by Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century, in response to certain Gnostics. These Gnostics claimed that Christ or the Apostles passed on some teachings secretly, or that there were some secret apostles, and that they (the Gnostics) were passing on these otherwise secret teachings. Irenaeus responded that the identity of the original Apostles was well known, as was the main content of their teaching and the identity of the apostles' successors. Therefore, anyone teaching something contrary to what was known to be apostolic teaching was not, in any sense, a successor to the Apostles or to Christ.

In addition to a line of historic transmission, Orthodox Christian churches, as also the Non-Chalcedon Orthodox churches, additionally require that a hierarch maintain Orthodox Church doctrine, which is that of the Apostles, as well as communion with other Orthodox bishops. The Orthodox Christians have at times permitted clergy ordained by Roman Catholic and Anglican bishops to be rapidly ordained within Orthodoxy. However, this is a matter of oikonomia and not recognition of Apostolic Succession.

[BrianInChrist]

The unbrokenness of apostolic succession is significant because of Jesus Christ's promise that the "gates of hell" (Matthew 16:18) would not prevail against the Church, and his promise that he himself would be with the apostles to "the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20). According to this interpretation, a complete disruption or end of such apostolic succession would mean that these promises were not kept as would an apostolic succession which, while formally intact, completely abandoned the teachings of the Apostles and their immediate successors; as, for example, if all the bishops of the world agreed to abrogate the Nicene Creed or repudiate the Holy Scripture.

You are defining the Church as the doctrine taught by the apostles.  And you are presuming that the doctrine taught by the Apostles is the same as that taught in the Orthodox church today.  I don't think many would agree with your definition or your presumption.

[Bon Voyage]

The unbrokenness of apostolic succession is significant because of Jesus Christ's promise that the "gates of hell" (Matthew 16:18) would not prevail against the Church, and his promise that he himself would be with the apostles to "the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20). According to this interpretation, a complete disruption or end of such apostolic succession would mean that these promises were not kept as would an apostolic succession which, while formally intact, completely abandoned the teachings of the Apostles and their immediate successors; as, for example, if all the bishops of the world agreed to abrogate the Nicene Creed or repudiate the Holy Scripture.

You are defining the Church as the doctrine taught by the apostles.  And you are presuming that the doctrine taught by the Apostles is the same as that taught in the Orthodox church today.  I don't think many would agree with your definition or your presumption.

CD,

Can you be absoutely sure that there was no corrupt leadership in authority in the Othodox Church?

[da525382]

The unbrokenness of apostolic succession is significant because of Jesus Christ's promise that the "gates of hell" (Matthew 16:18) would not prevail against the Church, and his promise that he himself would be with the apostles to "the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20). According to this interpretation, a complete disruption or end of such apostolic succession would mean that these promises were not kept as would an apostolic succession which, while formally intact, completely abandoned the teachings of the Apostles and their immediate successors; as, for example, if all the bishops of the world agreed to abrogate the Nicene Creed or repudiate the Holy Scripture.

I guess this is the reasoning of apostolic succession, and I have no problem with anyone believing it, but it just seems foreign to the teaching of scripture to me.....Jesus was Emmanuel, that is God WITH US, all of us, and just because he left the earth, he is still with us just as he was with the apostles or any other disciples.  The scriptural presentation of the apostles being the foundation of the church seems clearer and more understandable to me.  The church grows on above and beyond the foundation laid by them, the foundation is not passed on from one generation to the next, in other words, for it always remains.

Don

[Harold]

I saw mention of Apostolic Churches in the protestant world.

I spent quite a few years in the Apostolic Churches, and in the last few years came out of them. Many of you have the same problems with the Coc as I had with the Apostolic Churches.
They teach Acts 2:38 as a necessity of salvation, as well as, speaking in tongues. Personal holiness is a must after salvation, to not lose your salvation. They claim strict adherence to the apostles doctrine. Never heard anyone claim to be a descendant of Paul or Peter.

FTL

[Volkmar]

V,

In my experience, those Protestant apostolic groups mean something very different by "apostle" than the rest of the Christian world does.  By "apostle" they mean "messenger". As far as I know, they don't claim that their apostles have received divine inspiration to write Scripture, for example.

Brian,

True in all of your points. 

In my experience (limited) they do not claim "Big A" apostleship, rather point to the functions of the Apostles as still alive-and-well giftings of the Holy Spirit.  This usually includes a broad perspective ("big picture") that enables them to network among groups of churches and speak wisdom and truth into the local eldership from an outside perspective.

Personally, I'm always leery when an individual claims to be an apostle.  I'd rather recognize it by seeing it in action.  Proofs in the pudding.

You also wrote;

In my experience, the Protestant apostolic groups are more Petrine than Pauline.  That is, they focus on existing Christians rather than in aggressively expanding the Kingdom.

Interesting, but in my experience (still limited) with New Frontiers their focus is more Pauline.  I think that is one of their weaknesses.

Sovereign Grace Ministries is probably well balanced between Pauline and Petrine.  I've had some positive experience with S.G.  They are both Reformed and Charismatic.

V

[BrianInChrist]

Personally, I'm always leery when an individual claims to be an apostle.  I'd rather recognize it by seeing it in action.  Proofs in the pudding.

Amen, V.  It still strikes me as odd.  Maybe that's all the word meant 2,000 years ago ("messenger"), but the word "apostle" has since acquired connotative baggage, theologically speaking, that is difficult to unload.

[Volkmar]

Reading Galatians last night, it's interesting to see what Paul said about the folks in Jerusalem at the meeting in Acts 15:

Galatians 2:6

The American Standard Version
    But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's person)-- they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me:
    
The New American Standard Bible
    But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.
    
Holy Bible, The New Living Translation
    And the leaders of the church who were there had nothing to add to what I was preaching. (By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to me, for God has no favorites.)
    
THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language
    As for those who were considered important in the church, their reputation doesn't concern me. God isn't impressed with mere appearances, and neither am I. And of course these leaders were able to add nothing to the message I had been preaching.
    
The King James Version (Authorized)
    But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
    
The New Revised Standard Version
    And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) - those leaders contributed nothing to me.
    
Holman Christian Standard Bible®
    But from those recognized as important (what they really were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism ) -- those recognized as important added nothing to me.
    
Holy Bible, English Standard Version
    And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) - those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.
    
The Complete Jewish Bible
    Moreover, those who were the acknowledged leaders-what they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by outward appearances - these leaders added nothing to me.

Maybe that provides insight, maybe not.  Interesting, nonetheless.

JMG,

I read the same section last week...it also caused me to take pause and consider what I understood Paul to be saying. 

One thought that I had is that Paul isn't "running down" the "acknowledged leaders", but, at the same time does not find his own validation as Apostle in their view of him.  Rather, Paul relies on the vision and experience he had with the risen Christ and the "validation" that he enjoys evidenced through the working of the Spirit in his life and ministry.  (Gal. 1:11ff)  Even so, in 2:1-2 Paul test his gospel message with those who "were of reputation" (NASV) to be sure he hadn't messed up somehow and was "running in vain".


V

[Harold]

Personally, I'm always leery when an individual claims to be an apostle.  I'd rather recognize it by seeing it in action.  Proofs in the pudding.

Amen, V.  It still strikes me as odd.  Maybe that's all the word meant 2,000 years ago ("messenger"), but the word "apostle" has since acquired connotative baggage, theologically speaking, that is difficult to unload.

In the Apostolic Churches an apostle would be one gifted in planting churches, and caring for them in their infancy.

FTL

Their favorite titles are Pastor, or Bishop. As in T.D. Jakes

[Volkmar]

Personally, I'm always leery when an individual claims to be an apostle.  I'd rather recognize it by seeing it in action.  Proofs in the pudding.

Amen, V.  It still strikes me as odd.  Maybe that's all the word meant 2,000 years ago ("messenger"), but the word "apostle" has since acquired connotative baggage, theologically speaking, that is difficult to unload.

In the Apostolic Churches an apostle would be one gifted in planting churches, and caring for them in their infancy.

FTL

Their favorite titles are Pastor, or Bishop. As in T.D. Jakes

Thanks, Harold.

Now, a few questions for you and all who wish to think about it...

1.  Does "apostolic" gifing still exist?

2.  What do you think it looks like?

3.  In traditions where the title "apostle" is not/never used, can you think of individuals who function "apostolically"?


V

[Big Mike Lewis]

Yeah, there's an "apostle" here in town that claims a Pauline apostleship.  He makes no claim of succession, just to your tithe.  Funnily enough, he calls his congregation "The Bible Church of Christ"...his ties to the CofCsof are as "strong" as his ties to any sort of apostolic succession.

What some will resort to to make a buck...

[Jimbob]

Yeah, there's an "apostle" here in town that claims a Pauline apostleship.  He makes no claim of succession, just to your tithe.  Funnily enough, he calls his congregation "The Bible Church of Christ"...his ties to the CofCsof are as "strong" as his ties to any sort of apostolic succession.

Maybe he "restored" the New Testament church and that is his tie to being an "Apostle."

He's not a restorationist by any claim or principle.

[Jimbob]

JMG,

I read the same section last week...it also caused me to take pause and consider what I understood Paul to be saying. 

One thought that I had is that Paul isn't "running down" the "acknowledged leaders", but, at the same time does not find his own validation as Apostle in their view of him.  Rather, Paul relies on the vision and experience he had with the risen Christ and the "validation" that he enjoys evidenced through the working of the Spirit in his life and ministry.  (Gal. 1:11ff)  Even so, in 2:1-2 Paul test his gospel message with those who "were of reputation" (NASV) to be sure he hadn't messed up somehow and was "running in vain".


V

You'll notice I didn't comment before.  I figured there would be an assumption about why I posted it, and I think there was.  It's certainly true that Paul is not in this passage just writing them off wholesale, as I'm sure some would suggest (and it may have been incorrectly presumed I was).  I think, however, it does provide insight into the possibility that Paul 1) recognized their leadership as in vss. 1-5, but 2) did not grant more than was there.  IOW, there was more authority than than many in the CoC would recognize, less than the RCC.  (how much more or less is a big question, probably off topic to this thread)

[Volkmar]

jmg,

I don't think my response was based on a presumption that you thought Paul was "writing them off".  Rather, I was responding in view of my "coincidental" reading and thinking of last week.

I agree with your two points.  Not off-topic either, imo.


V

[CDHealy]

You are defining the Church as the doctrine taught by the apostles.  And you are presuming that the doctrine taught by the Apostles is the same as that taught in the Orthodox church today.  I don't think many would agree with your definition or your presumption.

Well, then, they find themselves disagreeing with objective fact.  Orthodox doctrine can be traced directly back to the apostles--if anyone wants to read the historical evidence.

[CDHealy]

Can you be absoutely sure that there was no corrupt leadership in authority in the Othodox Church?

Your question is misplaced.  It is not that any group claiming to be apostolic has never had one sinful or heretical leader, but rather, does the group a) condemn the sin and the heresy and b) have teaching that is consistent with the Apostles and a traceable historical lineage back to the Apostles?

In point of fact, yes, the Orthodox Church has had men in leadership who have espoused heresy--and such teaching has been condemned, the men deposed and so forth.  Which is a most definite sign that the Orthodox Church is, in fact, the Church Christ founded.

[BrianInChrist]

You are defining the Church as the doctrine taught by the apostles.  And you are presuming that the doctrine taught by the Apostles is the same as that taught in the Orthodox church today.  I don't think many would agree with your definition or your presumption.

Well, then, they find themselves disagreeing with objective fact.  Orthodox doctrine can be traced directly back to the apostles--if anyone wants to read the historical evidence.

What you call objective fact others would call opinion.  You may be able to trace Orthodox doctrine through some of the texts, but many texts have been lost over a thousand years ago.  We don't know what was written in them.  The only texts that remain are the texts that weren't destroyed.  And some of them were destroyed so that the only documents that would remain are those that agreed with existing Orthodox doctrine.  So the texts that you refer to can't prove your point.

[janine]

Can you be absoutely sure that there was no corrupt leadership in authority in the Othodox Church?

Your question is misplaced.  It is not that any group claiming to be apostolic has never had one sinful or heretical leader, but rather, does the group a) condemn the sin and the heresy and b) have teaching that is consistent with the Apostles and a traceable historical lineage back to the Apostles?

In point of fact, yes, the Orthodox Church has had men in leadership who have espoused heresy--and such teaching has been condemned, the men deposed and so forth.  Which is a most definite sign that the Orthodox Church is, in fact, the Church Christ founded.

You are assuming that the heresy was always found and rooted out.
You are assuming that all things standing now are not heresies.

[CDHealy]

What you call objective fact others would call opinion.  You may be able to trace Orthodox doctrine through some of the texts, but many texts have been lost over a thousand years ago.  We don't know what was written in them.  The only texts that remain are the texts that weren't destroyed.  And some of them were destroyed so that the only documents that would remain are those that agreed with existing Orthodox doctrine.  So the texts that you refer to can't prove your point.

What evidence--other than Jim W.'s posts and Dan Brown's novel--do you have that "many texts have been lost over a thousand years ago"?  And what evidence do you have that those texts lost (if any) were conclusive proof that the apostles' doctrine differed from what we know of it?

No, as a matter of fact, it is not opinion.  We can trace every major point of doctrine from the present back through all means of historical evidence directly to the Apostles.

[CDHealy]

You are assuming that the heresy was always found and rooted out.

No, not my opinon.  I again point you to history. 

You are assuming that all things standing now are not heresies.

No, not assuming.  There is objective historical evidence which points to the one-to-one correspondence of Orthodox Church belief and the Apostles doctrine through history.

Unless, of course, you have evidence that what is demonstrated to be Apostles' doctrine is, in fact, heresy.

[BrianInChrist]

What evidence--other than Jim W.'s posts and Dan Brown's novel--do you have that "many texts have been lost over a thousand years ago"?  And what evidence do you have that those texts lost (if any) were conclusive proof that the apostles' doctrine differed from what we know of it?

One library alone, the Great Library of Alexandria, held hundreds of thousands of books.  Those books were lost when the library was destroyed.  No one knows how that happened, but the fact remains that whatever books that were destroyed with the library (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria#Destruction_of_the_Library).

There are books that the Bible refers to, such as the Book of Jasher (Josh 10:13, Sam 1:18), the Book of Enoch (Jude 1:14), an Epistle to Corinth (1 Cor. 5:9), an Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3) that are lost to antiquity.  There are at least 28 books that are lost but referred to in Scripture in this manner.

The sacred books of the Donatists were destroyed by the edict of the emperor in 303 AD (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm).

You surely know that most of the books that survived the dark ages in the western empire were preserved in monasteries.

Do you need more evidence?