apostolic succession revisited

[GKC]

As do I. I’d note, however, that the Ordinal has a surprisingly strong doctrine of orders. Definitely not Roman Catholic or mediaeval, but I’m happy describing it as reformed catholic, in a way that is harder to justify with other parts of the Prayer Book…

As in the first paragraph of the Preface:“It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons…”, unto the closing thereof.

Of course, one must wink at the “no man”

I take my reform in very small doses, myself. Others may differ. My commendation to the first sentence referenced was in its broadest sense.

GKC

 

[Tomoko]

It doesn’t appear to me that Paul considered apostolic succession as “trappings of earthly traditions”. Folks need to understand that the doctrine of apostolic succession was not developed concretely yet in the first century, as we see it today. But the foundation for it was clearly layed out by the first Apostles, it just needed to be implemented, developed, and built on by successors of the Apostles, which it was.

Indeed, nor would I. I wasn’t expressing my own views here

 

[Tomoko]

I salute your first sentence.

GKC

That’s one of the few things you can find consensus on in the C of E

 

[Tomoko]

As do I. I’d note, however, that the Ordinal has a surprisingly strong doctrine of orders. Definitely not Roman Catholic or mediaeval, but I’m happy describing it as reformed catholic, in a way that is harder to justify with other parts of the Prayer Book…

It does. And I’ve been to ordinations where very evangelical ordinands, who refute that doctrine, refuse to participate in a lot of it - wearing a preaching scarf instead of a stole, not bowing to or kneeling for the bishop etc. That’s not to say they don’t see themselves following the apostles but, I think, more that the bishop has no special power to confer that roll upon them. As ever, this doesn’t hold true for everyone from that tradition.

 

[GKC]

That’s one of the few things you can find consensus on in the C of E

Or, amongst Anglicans, generally.

A motley crew.

Haven’t said that for a while.

GKC

 

[Novocastrian]

It does. And I’ve been to ordinations where very evangelical ordinands, who refute that doctrine, refuse to participate in a lot of it - wearing a preaching scarf instead of a stole, not bowing to or kneeling for the bishop etc. That’s not to say they don’t see themselves following the apostles but, I think, more that the bishop has no special power to confer that roll upon them. As ever, this doesn’t hold true for everyone from that tradition.

Sigh. Motley creatures, are human beings.

 

[seanman611]

As an Anglican, I’m certainly not going to argue against Apostolic Succession.

That said, I think I have an idea of how some may respond. Certainly many would say that Apostolic Succession was necessary in the earlier days of the Church because it was a way for people to trust the person teaching them. The fact that these priests/bishops could trace their lines back to an apostle was extremely important due to the many false teachings and heresies that existed during that time. I think that most Christians could agree with these statements. That being the case, in regards to the church today, I think many would say that proper teaching and the proper administration of the Sacraments is what makes the church the true church today. Instead of the legalistic nature of Apostolic Succession, it is the proper teaching and proper administration of the Sacraments whereby one can be assured that the church is indeed the church. To them, the Apostolic nature of the church is the proper teaching and administration of the Sacraments. I don’t necessarily agree with everything that I’ve written here, but as an Anglican, I’m certainly not going to discount the validity of the Sacraments being administered by the Lutheran Church.

For those churches who are not Sacramental, I’m not sure how they get around the issue.

 

[JMM1957]

Indeed, nor would I. I wasn’t expressing my own views here

Yes, I knew that. I was just using the quote you offered from someone else to make my point.

 

[JMM1957]

As an Anglican, I’m certainly not going to argue against Apostolic Succession.

That said, I think I have an idea of how some may respond. Certainly many would say that Apostolic Succession was necessary in the earlier days of the Church because it was a way for people to trust the person teaching them. The fact that these priests/bishops could trace their lines back to an apostle was extremely important due to the many false teachings and heresies that existed during that time. I think that most Christians could agree with these statements. That being the case, in regards to the church today, I think many would say that proper teaching and the proper administration of the Sacraments is what makes the church the true church today. Instead of the legalistic nature of Apostolic Succession, it is the proper teaching and proper administration of the Sacraments whereby one can be assured that the church is indeed the church. To them, the Apostolic nature of the church is the proper teaching and administration of the Sacraments. I don’t necessarily agree with everything that I’ve written here, but as an Anglican, I’m certainly not going to discount the validity of the Sacraments being administered by the Lutheran Church.

For those churches who are not Sacramental, I’m not sure how they get around the issue.

Even as we are 2000 years removed from the beginnings of Apostolic Succession, I as a Catholic feel assured today that the beliefs I hold to came from a direct link back to the Apostles. I agree that proper teaching and administration of the Sacraments are vital to my faith in the True Church, but I don’t lose sight of the fact that everything we have today is because of that direct link.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

As an Anglican, I’m certainly not going to argue against Apostolic Succession.

That said, I think I have an idea of how some may respond. Certainly many would say that Apostolic Succession was necessary in the earlier days of the Church because it was a way for people to trust the person teaching them. The fact that these priests/bishops could trace their lines back to an apostle was extremely important due to the many false teachings and heresies that existed during that time. I think that most Christians could agree with these statements.

True, but the protestants who find it necessary to show everything from scripture would have a difficult time showing where this was obviated, IMO.

That being the case, in regards to the church today, I think many would say that proper teaching and the proper administration of the Sacraments is what makes the church the true church today.

While I don’t doubt this argument has been popular, it seems like a bit of “question-begging.” “Proper” according to whom?

 

[GKC]

Sigh. Motley creatures, are human beings.

That they are.

Some more so than others, in my experience.

GKC

 

[Abu]

Without the Apostolic succession, what is lacking is the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Sacred Tradition, most sacraments, and that freedom from teaching error with which Christ’ s Church is endowed in the Magisterium.

 

[JMM1957]

In going back through all the posts so far replying to my OP, I don’t see that anyone really has addressed my original question specifically yet. I was hoping for more Protestants to speak up about it, but it has not happened, and maybe it won’t. I know this subject has been debated over and over. I’m really just trying to learn the mindset of those who reject Apostolic Succession today, seeing as how it took roughly 1500 years for it to be officially challenged. I realize that there were always some doubters right from the very start of Christianity who questioned everything and broke away to follow their own beliefs and interpretations of scripture, and not Christ’s church. The New Testament warns that these people would appear and disturb the early church and attempt to lead the true believers away with their teachings. Since Jesus knew this was going to happen in advance, he predicted it, and also more importantly, he innaugurated “a” visible church and a system of apostolic succession that could keep the faith pure and undefiled till the end of the age.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I am well aware that this subject has been debated over and over on this forum, but for all Protestant’s who disagree with apostolic succession, which I assume is all of you, getting to the real root of your disagreement with Catholic teaching on this is what needs to be addressed. My question to you is, how was apostolic succession accepted as biblical for 1500 years, and then suddenly it wasn’t? Did God allow the church founded on Jesus Christ in the first century to go astray for the next 1500 years, only to cause it to get back in line with a “proper” understanding of scripture by the Reformists? Do you really believe that?

Some Protestants believe in a form of Succession called “Baptist successionism”, no evidence of it what so ever, but it’s an interesting idea. Even if there’s no possible way it could be true. (I.E., Baptists are from an unbroken line of Baptists going back to John the Baptist). Of course, it must be stressed that most Baptists do NOT believe this.

 

[Mystophilus]

While some Anglicans will point to a line of bishops going back into the Catholic one, and thus back to the beginning, there are others of us who are frankly just not bothered by the whole idea. In Mt 3:9, John the Baptist says to the Jews, “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Given that, I do not consider Apostolic Succession to be necessary.

 

[YADA]

I would like to say that I don’t believe the election of Mathias to replace Judas is an example of succession. It was in fulfillment of the scriptures. We learn that in Acts 1:15-22.

You yourself quoted the scripture that proves the succession…“Let another take his office…” Judas - as did all the twelve - held an office …an office exists beyond any individual office holder …and thus when the office becomes vacant for any reason a successor is required. Unless an office is eliminated it will need to be filled intermittently whenever it becomes vacant.

Another passage on a specific office is found in Isaiah …the Office of Prime Minister to the King …this is the office Peter ( and his successors) hold.

 

[JMM1957]

While some Anglicans will point to a line of bishops going back into the Catholic one, and thus back to the beginning, there are others of us who are frankly just not bothered by the whole idea. In Mt 3:9, John the Baptist says to the Jews, “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Given that, I do not consider Apostolic Succession to be necessary.

If Apostolic Succession is the way Jesus intended it, which is what I believe, and what I believe is shown clearly in the scriptures, then I think that it is something that we should hold in high regard. Because if it was meant to be that way, which I believe it was, it was done so to “guarantee” the transmission of the true faith to anyone who seeks it. So when you say “you are frankly not bothered by the whole idea”, it seems rather apathetic to me. The quote (Mt. 3:9) you offered which you feel defends your position is true in that it shows that doing the will of God is of foremost importance rather than claiming to be children of Abraham and having a hardness of heart. So how does this quote have anything to do with not needing Apostolic Succession? Seems you are easily tossing aside something so precious as an infallible undefiled faith to guide the church, and at the same time saying that you do not consider Apostolic Succession to be necessary. How confident are you then, of you having received the whole truth of faith handed down to you?

 

[Tomyris]

I am well aware that this subject has been debated over and over on this forum, but for all Protestant’s who disagree with apostolic succession, which I assume is all of you,

No. There are various groupings. For example, those who hold that their AS is as valid as that of Catholic AS, those who hold that their is valid but the Catholic AS is NOT valid, those who hold that there was a valid AS but the Catholic Church threw it away and those who hold to the idea that AS was a fiction from the beginning and not the Lord’s intent.

getting to the real root of your disagreement with Catholic teaching on this is what needs to be addressed.

True. This is a good insight.

My question to you is, how was apostolic succession accepted as biblical for 1500 years,

This is a point of debate with the last group I mentioned. It is asserted that AS was read back into early church history and the Scriptures when it does not belong there.

and then suddenly it wasn’t? Did God allow the church founded on Jesus Christ in the first century to go astray for the next 1500 years, only to cause it to get back in line with a “proper” understanding of scripture by the Reformists?

This is an oversimplification.

Do you really believe that?

Please review CAF rules about not questioning the sincerity of another’s beliefs.

 

[JMM1957]

In my mind at least, AS as we Catholics see it, must be proveable by accurate historical records starting with the twelve Apostles and continuing in an unbroken line until this very day. I know that the Catholic Church can prove it, although records are very scant in the first couple centuries for obvious reasons. At the very least, records do show the list of popes back to Peter, which is considered the most important fact when talking AS. Really, what confidence would there be in AS as Christ intended, if we couldn’t prove it today?

 

[Tomyris]

In my mind at least, AS as we Catholics see it, must be proveable by accurate historical records starting with the twelve Apostles and continuing in an unbroken line until this very day. I know that the Catholic Church can prove it,

I suspect your reasoning here is circular. The Catholic Church SAYS there is AS. There is AS. Why? Because of AS.

although records are very scant in the first couple centuries for obvious reasons. At the very least, records do show the list of popes back to Peter, which is considered the most important fact when talking AS. Really, what confidence would there be in AS as Christ intended, if we couldn’t prove it today?

And if Christ did not intend AS? If it was a massive fraud foisted on the church by men Paul warned about - wolves who would arise among us, and the ‘proofs’ offered for it are eisegetical, as well as reading AS back into early Church history? Consider the authorship of 1 Clement - the internal evidence is that it was not the bishop of Rome who was the author but rather the presbytery. Only later authors ascribed its authorship to be that of Pope Clement - a documented matter of historical revisionism.