About 'Apostolic Succession' in the Anglican,Lutheran or other Churches?

[Road2Damascus]

First the broad question, Is there Apostolic Succession in the Anglican and Lutheran Churches? I think there is even another thread discussing this at the moment.

To this you might say, is this a trick question? Does anyone reading this say “Yes” to this? I would not have said ‘yes’ in a formal way but I found this little known fact interesting:

Through the Order of Corporate Reunion, a holy order established by Pope Pius in the late 1800’s,(and recognized as valid by the Vatican today), the line of Apostolic Succession has been extended through the Lutheran Orthodox Church. Apostolic Succession is the laying on of hands, one to another in an unbroken line of succession from the original Apostles down through history to today.

lutheranorthodoxchurch.org/Our-Apostolic-Succession.html

To me, it sounds like a form of Apostolic succession. I will have to research it further.

And wikipedia reads:

"The Order of Corporate Reunion is an ecumenical and interdenominational association of clergy and laity of Anglican origin, founded by Frederick George Lee, Thomas Mossman and Joseph Seccombe in London in 1874.

The Order of Corporate Reunion regards valid apostolic succession as an essential aspect of the church."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Corporate_Reunion

The above Lutheran Church are of course, the Lutheran Orthodox Churches for purposes of discussion here.

 

[cmforte]

I was once a member of the Lutheran Church Wisconsin Synod here in the USA, and I can tell you that they at least **do not **believe in Apostolic succession.

If I remember correctly (because I was once a member of it too), even ELCA (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) also does not believe in it.

-Chris

 

[Road2Damascus]

I was once a member of the Lutheran Church Wisconsin Synod here in the USA, and I can tell you that they at least **do not **believe in Apostolic succession.

If I remember correctly (because I was once a member of it too), even ELCA (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) also does not believe in it.

-Chris

Yes, thank you. I am acquainted with the WELS, LCMS, ELCA, I am fairly well acquainted with the Lutheran Church. This one in question seems to be dealing with the Lutheran Orthodox Church in New York City. This seems to be a unique case but still something to share.

 

[Bran_Stark]

I was once a member of the Lutheran Church Wisconsin Synod here in the USA, and I can tell you that they at least **do not **believe in Apostolic succession.

If I remember correctly (because I was once a member of it too), even ELCA (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) also does not believe in it.

We need to keep in mind that a person or church might* believe* in Apostolic Succession, insofar as it recognizes that ministers ordained through the histrionic episcopate can trace their linage to the Apostles - but not hold the practice to be essential, and might not practice it itself.

 

[GKC]

First the broad question, Is there Apostolic Succession in the Anglican and Lutheran Churches? I think there is even another thread discussing this at the moment.

To this you might say, is this a trick question? Does anyone reading this say “Yes” to this? I would not have said ‘yes’ in a formal way but I found this little known fact interesting:

lutheranorthodoxchurch.org/Our-Apostolic-Succession.html

To me, it sounds like a form of succession. I will have to research it further.

And wikipedia reads:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Corporate_Reunion

The above Lutheran Church are of course, the Lutheran Orthodox Churches for purposes of discussion here.

Memory is fallible, but I seem to recall that there was a poster on the board some time back, who claimed valid orders through some sort of connection to the Order of Corporate Reunion. The subject is addressed in Ansons’s BISHOPS AT LARGE, particularly pp. 66-90. I doubt the RCC views them with any favor.They would be* vagante,* it seems to me.

But it’s a subject I don’t have solidly in my mind.

GKC

 

[cmforte]

We need to keep in mind that a person or church might believe in Apostolic Succession, insofar as it recognizes that ministers ordained through the histrionic episcopate can trace their linage to the Apostles - but not hold the practice to be essential, and might not practice it itself.

I got the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS) and the Lutheran Church Wisconsin Synod mixed up, since they are so similar in some ways. In the ELS, the authority and legitamcy to preach the Word of God comes directly from God and only confirmed by the congregation through an Office of Ministry. They believe the authority for being a pastor comes directly from the Bible (as the Word of God, how God makes His intentions known), not from a man who is just another link in a line of succession. It is only Apostolic as the Bible, at least the NT, was wriitten by the Apostles.

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Yes, thank you. I am acquainted with the WELS, LCMS, ELCA, I am fairly well acquainted with the Lutheran Church. This one in question seems to be dealing with the Lutheran Orthodox Church in New York City. This seems to be a unique case but still something to share.

My apologies. I’ve never heard of it. Sounds like a contradiction in terms.

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

I know this is irrelevant since we are talking about the Lutheran Orthodox Church (a contradiction in terms, like saying Catholic-Baptist Church), but I need to correct my self: In 1872 the Wisconsin Synod and a dissenting part of the Missouri Synod joined to form the ELS. So they are the same.

-Chris

 

[ChadS]

First of all the Catholic Church has in no way said that the Lutheran Orthodox Church has valid Apostolic succession. Their website quotes “Domine Iesus” by citing the part where it says the Church remains united with the churches that have valid Apostolic succession. Then it quotes from the Augsburg Confession that says that their Confession differs in no way from Scripture, the Catholic Church and the Church of Rome.

That seems to me to be a rather convoluted way to say that the Vatican has ratified the fact that they have Apostolic succession, which it most decidedly hasn’t. So I think it can be safely concluded that they do not indeed have Apostolic succession.

When most Protestants speak of Apostolic succession they speak of it in vague terms like all it means is they are adhering to and passing on the same teachings as the Apostles had and as are recorded in the Bible.

ChadS

 

[Road2Damascus]

Okay, great guys. CMForte, also, I’m in the Upper Midwest, so, yes, it seems there are a dozen Lutheran Churches within 5, 10 miles of me, maybe not that many but there are a lot not to mention at least 1 Concordia college

Even historically speaking, a Slovak Lutheran Church is here though under the LCMS I believe. In general, I really like the Lutherans, I do like the way the WELS Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod think actually, in spite of whatever the news may bring up, I’ve read a number of their articles and what they stand for and I find myself in agreement, they have in my opinion, Moral Backbone.

And per Chad’s remark, I think this Union agreement came in principle in having to do with the Anglican Church, some “Orthodox” Anglican types.

 

[GKC]

Okay, great guys. CMForte, also, I’m in the Upper Midwest, so, yes, it seems there are a dozen Lutheran Churches within 5, 10 miles of me, maybe not that many but there are a lot not to mention at least 1 Concordia college

Even historically speaking, a Slovak Lutheran Church is here though under the LCMS I believe. In general, I really like the Lutherans, I do like the way the WELS Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod think actually, in spite of whatever the news may bring up, I’ve read a number of their articles and what they stand for and I find myself in agreement, they have in my opinion, Moral Backbone.

And per Chad’s remark, I think this Union agreement came in principle in having to do with the Anglican Church, some “Orthodox” Anglican types.

Yes, it was Anglican in origin. It originated with a Dr. F.G. Lee, an Anglican priest. In addition to Anson, you will find it discussed in Brandreth’s EPISCOPI VAGANTES AND THE ANGLICAN CHURCH.

GKC

 

[ndismyhome]

Y’all do realize that every Lutheran (ELCA) bishop ordained after 2000 has had to have an Episcopal bishop present in order to ensure that the ELCA has apostolic succession through the Anglicans as part of our (ELCA) full communion agreement with the Episcoplains, right?

Look it up, the document is called “Called to Common Mission”.

Also, the Swedish Lutheran Church brought the Catholic Bishops in the territory into the fold and has claimed valid apostolic succession since that time.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

The Catholic Church has declared that although the Anglican Church originally had apostolic succession, that was broken very early on. It was lost, because the formula and method of ordaining Bishop’s was radically changed, until all validly ordained Bishop’s had died. While the Anglicans later reinstated the traditional formula and methodology, they had no validly ordained Bishops to ordain others. That was how they lost their Apostolic Succession

The Church does recognize that SOME individual Anglican Bishops may have apostolic succession, because they were ordained by Bishops that had apostolic succession themselves (such as some that were ordained by “Old Catholic” Bishop’s, by "renegade Catholic Bishop’s, etc.). Those ordinations, while valid, would also be considered to be completely illicit.

Any ordinations of Anglican Bishop’s, whether validly ordained or not, would be considered to be illicit by the Catholic Church.

The Luthern Church NEVER had apostolic Succession according to the Roman Catholic Church. They made no attempt to follow the traditional and valid method of ordaining Bishop’s, Luther had NO authority to ordain anyone, and even those Bishop’s that came over to the Luthern Churches radically modified the method of ordaining their successors, making any such “ordinations” completely invalid.

 

[ndismyhome]

The Catholic Church has declared that although the Anglican Church originally had apostolic succession, that was broken very early on. It was lost, because the formula and method of ordaining Bishop’s was radically changed, until all validly ordained Bishop’s had died. While the Anglicans later reinstated the traditional formula and methodology, they had no validly ordained Bishops to ordain others. That was how they lost their Apostolic Succession

The Church does recognize that SOME individual Anglican Bishops may have apostolic succession, because they were ordained by Bishops that had apostolic succession themselves (such as some that were ordained by “Old Catholic” Bishop’s, by "renegade Catholic Bishop’s, etc.). Those ordinations, while valid, would also be considered to be completely illicit.

Any ordinations of Anglican Bishop’s, whether validly ordained or not, would be considered to be illicit by the Catholic Church.

The Luthern Church NEVER had apostolic Succession according to the Roman Catholic Church. They made no attempt to follow the traditional and valid method of ordaining Bishop’s, Luther had NO authority to ordain anyone, and even those Bishop’s that came over to the Luthern Churches radically modified the method of ordaining their successors, making any such “ordinations” completely invalid.

I love Catholic “apologists” who read everything is such a fun, jovial, and grace-filled way. Where did I argue that Lutherans have ever had Apostolic Succession according to Rome? I merely stated that some Lutherans have a self-understanding of Apostolic Succession and that it matters to them. I did not, however, make any claims about it mattering/ being valid to Rome.

Secondly, every Protestant on here is well aware of what Rome thinks about Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists etc. on a host of issues. I thought that the purpose of this thread was to discuss Lutheran Apostolic Succession on its own terms and not merely as a foil for Roman apologetics. Cheers.

In Christ,
NDISMYHOME

 

[GKC]

The Catholic Church has declared that although the Anglican Church originally had apostolic succession, that was broken very early on. It was lost, because the formula and method of ordaining Bishop’s was radically changed, until all validly ordained Bishop’s had died. While the Anglicans later reinstated the traditional formula and methodology, they had no validly ordained Bishops to ordain others. That was how they lost their Apostolic Succession

The Church does recognize that SOME individual Anglican Bishops may have apostolic succession, because they were ordained by Bishops that had apostolic succession themselves (such as some that were ordained by “Old Catholic” Bishop’s, by "renegade Catholic Bishop’s, etc.). Those ordinations, while valid, would also be considered to be completely illicit.

Any ordinations of Anglican Bishop’s, whether validly ordained or not, would be considered to be illicit by the Catholic Church.

The Luthern Church NEVER had apostolic Succession according to the Roman Catholic Church. They made no attempt to follow the traditional and valid method of ordaining Bishop’s, Luther had NO authority to ordain anyone, and even those Bishop’s that came over to the Luthern Churches radically modified the method of ordaining their successors, making any such “ordinations” completely invalid.

AFAIK, and it’s been a hobby of mine for around 15 years, the RCC has never made a general statement as to the relationship of the Old Catholic/PNCC lines in Anglicanism, as to the validity of the orders of any particular Anglican cleric. Though it has been assumed that such was a factor in the sub conditione ordinations of Fr. J. J. Hughes and Fr. Graham Leonard. Nor has any comment been made on the logical deduction, from an Anglican bishop possessing valid/illicit orders: that they would transmit those orders, similarly, every time they consecrated/ordained within Anglicanism. This would follow the logic in Ott, p. 458, but it is a tangled subject.

Apostolicae curae says that Anglicans broke Apostolic succession due to a defective form and a defect in intention, on the part of those who used the form, as it was found in the Edwardine Ordinal. The point in time (see Clark, ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION) is usually assumed to have been at the consecration of Archbishop Parker, in 1559.

GKC

 

[Road2Damascus]

Right, we will all keep it as a civil discussion here.

I have enough of a problem getting in a state of grace, I know how we treat our neighbor is often how we treat Christ.

The initial posting was mentioning this document that is still in effect from the Vatican. So, I just thought the topic IN GENERAL and that document too, specifically are interesting. No more and no less and this is I think the “Non_Catholic religions” forums. So,this was basically just something I wondered about.

 

[GKC]

Right, we will all keep it as a civil discussion here.

I have enough of a problem getting in a state of grace, I know how we treat our neighbor is often how we treat Christ.

The initial posting was mentioning this document that is still in effect from the Vatican. So, I just thought the topic IN GENERAL and that document too, specifically are interesting. No more and no less and this is I think the “Non_Catholic religions” forums. So,this was basically just something I wondered about.

I am familiar with the history of the Order for Corporate Reunion. But much of what you are saying is confusing. Is it your position that the RCC recognizes the Order for Corporate Reunion as, in some sense, possessing valid orders? What document are you referring to, and in what sense is it still in effect from the Vatican?

I must be missing something. Perhaps if Bishop Gladfelter is around, he might comment. I find his name associated with the some of these things, on line.

GKC

 

[Road2Damascus]

I am familiar with the history of the Order for Corporate Reunion. But much of what you are saying is confusing. Is it your position that the RCC recognizes the Order for Corporate Reunion as, in some sense, possessing valid orders? What document are you referring to, and in what sense is it still in effect from the Vatican?

I must be missing something. Perhaps if Bishop Gladfelter is around, he might comment. I find his name associated with the some of these things, on line.

GKC

I was only discussing it, I’m making no assertions, I am on no soap box. I found this document interesting as in the initial post and wondered if there was any (name removed by moderator)ut and as it is, we have learned some things.

 

[GKC]

I was only discussing it, I’m making no assertions, I am on no soap box. I found this document interesting as in the initial post and wondered if there was any (name removed by moderator)ut and as it is, we have learned some things.

I see.

Thanks.

GKC

 

[pritchard85]

First the broad question, Is there Apostolic Succession in the Anglican and Lutheran Churches? I think there is even another thread discussing this at the moment.

To this you might say, is this a trick question? Does anyone reading this say “Yes” to this? I would not have said ‘yes’ in a formal way but I found this little known fact interesting:

lutheranorthodoxchurch.org/Our-Apostolic-Succession.html

To me, it sounds like a form of Apostolic succession. I will have to research it further.

And wikipedia reads:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Corporate_Reunion

The above Lutheran Church are of course, the Lutheran Orthodox Churches for purposes of discussion here.

Anglicans absolutely are in Apostolic Succession regardless of what Apostolicae Curae said. The facts are found in what is commonly called the Dutch touch and the Polish pat that Anglican priests were in fact ordained within the line of Succession.