Question Number 1340:
What is the difference between Orthodox and Catholic understandings of apostolic succession?
ANSWER:
There is indeed a different understanding, but it should be admitted that few are aware of it! For a good discussion, please see here:
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?8403-Successors-of-the-Apostles-or-successors-of-Peter
Basically, in historic / patristic Orthodoxy, the bishop is Peter's successor, while the presbyters stand for the apostles and do everything a bishop can do except ordain. The bishop is the symbol and center of unity of the Church (which is always the local Church).
In the Latin tradition (at least post-500 Latin tradition), all of the bishops are the successors to the Apostles and the Pope is Peter's successor in this apostolic college. It is not clear whether the priests are part of this apostolic succession. This Latin model has been influential even in the Orthodox world, but the link above should be useful to understand the roots and "defenses" of both perspectives.
See also: http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/media/documents/ecclesiology.pdf?noredir=1
Comments
This implies that Peter ordained the rest of the Apostles as bishops, which we know is not true. All of the Apostles were ordained on Christ's authority as God. Each one subsequently ordained successor bishops to administer a region and/or replace that original Apostle before he died. This created a "genealogical" effect where every single bishop can trace their succession to one or more the original Apostles. This also created the hierarchal structure of bishops/exarchs, archbishops/metropolitans, and pope/patriarchs we see today. The pope's judicial primacy acts for the eastern churches as a "supreme court" but holds no superseding authority over the regional patriarch.
Actually, there is no such implication. Bishops are not actually "ordained" - they are chosen from among the presbyters to become the protos, and this is properly called consecration (not ordination). The Apostles had a unique role and mandate which is not repeatable, and they were certainly not bishops in that a bishop is by definition the Eucharistic president of a particular Church, for instance James (not of the twelve) for Jerusalem. Bishops did inherit their authority from the apostles, which is why there is succession in that sense. However, the pre-nicene and Eastern patristic testimony is that: (1) the bishop holds the place or chair of Peter in the Church; (2) the bishop and presbyters share in the apostolic authority, but the presbyters do everything in unity with the bishop. In the Orthodox view, the "metropolitan / patriarchal" system only exists for reasons of practical and political accomodation.
This implies that Peter ordained the rest of the Apostles as bishops, which we know is not true. All of the Apostles were ordained on Christ's authority as God. Each one subsequently ordained successor bishops to administer a region and/or replace that original Apostle before he died. This created a "genealogical" effect where every single bishop can trace their succession to one or more the original Apostles. This also created the hierarchal structure of bishops/exarchs, archbishops/metropolitans, and pope/patriarchs we see today. The pope's judicial primacy acts for the eastern churches as a "supreme court" but holds no superseding authority over the regional patriarch.