Apostolic Succession in non catholic churches

[jimXroberts]

This is a difficult subject. In the early Church, there were bishops and deacons who had been consecrated in their role by the apostles who in turn had been appointed by Jesus. When the apostles had died, the bishops ordained new bishops and deacons. Priests came a little later, but they were ordained by bishops who could trace the validity of their orders to the apostles.

In the Middle Ages, bishops is some countries carried a great deal of wealth and power. They tended to come from noble families and were chosen by the monarch. Some were illegitimately appointed and not ordained. The priests they appointed were not legitimately ordained. That meant there could be breaks in apostolic succession in certain parts of the world. However, bishops are usually consecrated by a number of other bishops and it only requires one of them to be legitimate for apostolic succession to be repaired.

The Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches have apostolic succession - in fact they probably have a better claim to it than we do. Various schismatic groups such as the Old Catholics are regarded as having apostolic succession since they started with a legitimately consecrated bishop.

The Anglican Community has less of a claim to apostolic succession since bishops were illegitimately appointed during the reigns of Elizabeth I and Edward VI. Pope Leo XIII declared all Anglican orders to be utterly null and void because of the break in apostolic succession. However, things get very complicated because Old Catholics are in Communion with the Church of England and sometimes their bishops are involved in the consecration of Anglican bishops. Anglican priests who join the Catholic Church are regarded as laymen, and if they wish to continue their ministry they have to be ordained by a Catholic bishop. However, there have been occasions where a “conditional ordination” is conveyed because an Old Catholic bishop could be shown to be in the pedigree of succession.

 

[SPV]

The Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches have apostolic succession - in fact they probably have a better claim to it than we do.

yes i think so .

 

[SPV]

The Anglican Community has less of a claim to apostolic succession since bishops were illegitimately appointed during the reigns of Elizabeth I and Edward VI. Pope Leo XIII declared all Anglican orders to be utterly null and void because of the break in apostolic succession. However, things get very complicated because Old Catholics are in Communion with the Church of England and sometimes their bishops are involved in the consecration of Anglican bishops. Anglican priests who join the Catholic Church are regarded as laymen, and if they wish to continue their ministry they have to be ordained by a Catholic bishop. However, there have been occasions where a “conditional ordination” is conveyed because an Old Catholic bishop could be shown to be in the pedigree of succession.

is there any non catholic church which is declared by catholic church officially as having apostolic succession.pope Leo XIII declared Anglican church 's orders are not valid ,in the same way any official stand from catholic church on any other non catholic churches

 

[dochawk]

So apostolic succession depends on union with catholic church or
succession of holy orders from any of 12 twelve apostles to present with out any breakage.

No.

Only the second.

And even then, valid ordination, not just the sequence. E.g., the Church of Finland and the Anglicans have the sequence, but could not pass on succession during periods in which their understanding of orders (as well as form of the sacrament) were inconsistent with orders.

any church out of catholic church and which is allowing married priests -is there anything wrong even though they are having apostolic successionbased on above two facts ?.

None of the apostolic churches have had a married episcopate since the second century, so married clergy doesn’t come into play.

if one part of that group reunited with catholic church ,now they are in catholic church communion .what will be their apostolic succession ,any comment

Noone would get Apostolic Succession simply by “uniting” or “re-uniting” with the Catholic side of the schism. Conceivably, all of their “bishops” could be ordained as bishops and their “priests” as priests (and possibly even conditional ordination, depending upon circumstances), but the unity would be insufficient. Note, though, that the West follows the Augustinian notion of orders, while the East (and particularly the EO) the Cyprianic view. Most (all?) EO would maintain that mass validation of invalid orders could and would occur when entering union (and many see that as what would happen if the RCC "returned to Orthodoxy

 

[dochawk]

only one part of church of east reunited with catholic church which is known as Chaldean Catholic Church.Right ?

No, there were many churches by then. If I’m remembering pieces correctly, the OO schism had already occurred, resulting in the rival Patriarchs of Antioch, one OO and one the Maronite patriarch.

When the Muhammadans invaded, the Maronites and their patriarch were separated from contact with Christendom. What was left on “this” side (in the physical sense) elected a Patriarch of Antioch (the head of the Melkite church). There was no split among the separate Maronites; they just went centuries out of contact and hiding in caves (the horses couldn’t get in [they chose caves with that criterion] to trample their altars).

The Melkites were unusually skilled at keeping simultaneous communion with Rome and Constantinople, spending multiple extended periods in simultaneous communion. Eventually, as the newly elected Patriarch again requested communion with Rome (in a flamed synod, which consecrated a third bishop just to have enough to vote . . .), the unhappy other side appealed to Constantinople, which sent bishops and purported too hold a synod without a single Melkite bishop and elect a new Melkite Patriarch, creating a fourth Patriarch of Constantinople.

And now there are five. The fifth may be the OC leader, I"m not sure. But the Melkite priest who used to come out for the outreach here showed me a picture of all five posing together for a picture :crazy_face:

In any event, all five groups have apostolic succession, and communion with Rome would not change that.

 

[dochawk]

only one part of church of east reunited with catholic church which is known as Chaldean Catholic Church.Right ?

That’s a different group altogether (are you keeping a scorecard? :crazy_face:)

The Chaldeans are Oriental Catholics, while the Maronites are Eastern Catholics (though of Syriac descent).

On my last trip to San Diego, I intended to go to liturgy at the Chaldean church, which is up the street from where I lived in El Cajon, irc, --right up until I noticed that they had two liturgies, in different languages, neither of which was English! (Arabic and Aramaic? I forget)

If these things interest you, my best suggestion is the East and West forum Archies on byzcath.org. And folks there are quite happy to answer (respectful) questions. (but do understand that putting down, disrespecting, dismissing, etc. the “other” side is not tolerated there, whichever side you are one).

Various schismatic groups such as the Old Catholics are regarded as having apostolic succession since they started with a legitimately consecrated bishop.

Past tense for the Old Catholics. While they currently have some with orders, their bishops are no longer capable of conferring orders, as they no longer understand them (they think they can ordain women now).

The Anglican Community has less of a claim to apostolic succession since bishops were illegitimately appointed during the reigns of Elizabeth I and Edward VI.

It’s not the appointment that’s the issue, but the invalid episcopal consecrations, which lacked both the form of the Sacrament, and also the intent (the office was thought of as administrative, rather than as successors to the apostles).

Contrary to popular belief, until the first Vatican Council, Rome had minimal involvement in choosing bishops outside of Italy and the Americas. In some cases the synods chose them, while in others the lay authority appointed and the bishops consecrated those appointment. A lay veto of the election of the Pope himself existed into the 20th century! (and when exercised by the delegate of the Austro-Hungarian emperor, the pope chosen after the veto changed the rules in a hurry!)

is there any non catholic church which is declared by catholic church officially as having apostolic succession.

The RCC doesn’t make a practice of running around with such endorsements . . . that said, the EO and OO are recognized, and the PNC’s orders are not disputed.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I might be wrong there, I am not very knowledgeable on matter of OCA.

I see. That actually explains a lot, thank you.

In any event, all five groups have apostolic succession, and communion with Rome would not change that.

I remember the picture, it’s pretty hilarious to think there are 5 of them! Anyhow, being on communion with Rome does not change Apostolic Succession in sense of valid Holy Orders, but changes one Genesis was talking about.

However, the more traditional and more precise definition of apostolic succession can only be applied to the Catholic Church. It includes not just lineal sacramental heritage, but also successive, collegial communion with the Apostolic See. It is only the college of bishops headed by the successor of Peter that truly succeeds the college of the Apostles. Bishops who lack succession in this unity do not succeed in the commission given to the pastors of the one Church of Christ alone.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

married priests are fine, if allowed by canons of the Church (most Eastern Catholic Churches allow this, Latin Catholics do not). Even being married as bishop does not invalidate Apostolic Succession of “valid holy orders” in itself. Even if one marries he stays bishop by ordination and sacrament- though he might be disobeying Church and hence get excommunicated as outcome.

Basically there are two understandings of Apostolic Succession.

a) Valid Holy Orders
b) Union with Church

for a) you only need to be able to trace lineage of ordination back to Apostles. For b) you need to be in unity with current Pope. All chaldean churches have a) but only Chaldean Catholic Church has b).

 

[poche]

They say no. They were never ‘out’ of the Catholic Church. However they were isolated by circumstances.