Apostolic Succession. Which denominations have it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheMortenBay
  • Start date Start date
I have found it helpful in the past the quote the original question/post again.

“I had a discussion about Apostolic Succession today, and it got me thinking. Who aside from the Catholic and Orthodox Church actually have valid succession - and a bonus question: is valid succession the same as having validly ordained priests/ bishops. Because I know the Anglican Church doesn’t have the latter, but could they still have valid Apostolic Succession?”

Some posters tend to go all out but forgot the actual question and then state some “interesting things”. Point is, referring to the question (quoted in this post for those not wanting to scroll all the way up) , you are okay and on topic. Keep going 🙂
 
Last edited:
Are you referring to the divide over the Nestorian controversy / results of the Council of Chalcedon?
 
Last edited:
No that was Ephesus. This was the Monophysite controversy. Though since the late 20th century the Catholic Church has acknowledged that these churches (conventionally known as the Oriental Orthodox in English today) are not actually heretics. A lot of language barriers…
 
Quite frankly I sometimes think the last couple Christological debates in the 5th century go too far into the weeds. They pretty much should have just said, look, Christ is fully God and fully man. Trying to explain too much leads to error. Which they kinda did at Chalcedon but with a lot more words.
 
While I don’t necessarily agree, this is correct from the RCC POV
 
twf said:
Though since the late 20th century the Catholic Church has acknowledged that these churches (conventionally known as the Oriental Orthodox in English today) are not actually heretics.
Click to expand...
Not to sound too dramatic but I doubt “they” were thinking “yay” when that was pronounced!
 
I don’t know. I think we would all like to be reunited into one Church, but true union has to be built on actual agreement on important matters of doctrine. That’s the rub.
 
I would. And (all excuse the responses) then EVERYONE WOULD BE EXPECTED TO LISTEN. Not the case now…
 
Actually, St John Paul II signed common declarations of faith on Christology with the Coptic Pope, and I believe the Syriac Patriarch as well.
 
Where does the bible say that?

It does not, so why do you allege it?

Are you ADDING TO SCRIPTURE??? 😮

It certainly appears that you are, because the bible clearly - clearly - specifies how authority was passed on. Hint: It is not mere possession of a (91%) bible, or a thought process, or wishful thinking.

How long have you been here now?
 
Hodos said:
Those who hold to the gospel as proclaimed by the apostles and normed by the scriptures they handed down to us.
Click to expand...
What a grossly inappropriate misstatement of the concept.

When you present a position as fact, rather than opinion on a Catholic forum, and it directly contradicts Church teaching, and you do not disclose your rejection of Church teaching, it is inappropriate.
phil19034 said:
The following theoretically has Apostolic Succession where they have not introduced female ordination
  • Old Catholic Church (and splinter groups from the Old Catholics and Catholic churches)
Click to expand...
The Armenian Apostolic Church is another.

Also the Polish National Church (although a cleric here has told me that they have purported to “ordain” women as deacons), and a handful of other smaller groups.

The best source I can suggest is to search for
vagante site:byzcath.org
Click to expand...
there are a number of Catholic and Orthodox bishops who have ordained other bishops, some of whom have started small churches.
Hodos said:
Not interested in the anachronistic definition used today.
Click to expand...
:roll_eyes:

The apostolic churches, which promulgated the Bible, have been using the actual definition for two millennium.

Again, if you are going to reject the basics of the Church, disclose it when you pronounce your opinions on this Catholic forum.
Hodos said:
If you read Irenaeus, whom we believe coined the term
Click to expand...
Bluntly, this is a “typical” Protestant issue of looking at one source or verse, and seeing everything else through it.

Are you unaware of the historic tension between the Augustinian and Cyprianic views of orders, and trying to use something else, or is this a deliberate attempt to mislead the faithful?

Even if we were to ignore the rest of the Church fathers and all that has been learned since, and then filter everything through your single quote, the necessity of episcopal transmission precludes the claims you made above.
 
Dovekin said:
hat is, an unbroken line of bishops is no longer the definition of Apostolic Succession.
Click to expand...
No, that is not the Catholic claim.

Rather, that once the Anglicans lost the necessary understanding of the episcopacy , and the necessary intent, the next “ordinations” did not actually result in bishops, breaking the succession. Once broken, the non-bishops sitting in the sees could not possibly ordain more bishops.
Dovekin said:
Some Lutherans also claim Apostolic Succession. Scandinavian Lutherans have an unbroken line of bishops
Click to expand...
Again the lack of understanding broke the chain, resulting in non-bishops that couldn’t create more bishops or priests.
Hodos said:
I am discussing the topic of apostolic succession and what denominations lay claim to it, which is the subject of the thread.
Click to expand...
No.

You are hijacking it from the clear context of the question, from within the Church, and trying to put your version which rejects the understanding held by the OP.
Hodos said:
It is interesting how a term morphs over time to mean something quite different than its original use.
Click to expand...
Repeating this falsehood will not make it true.

hawk
 
dochawk said:
The Armenian Apostolic Church is another.
Click to expand...
The Armenian Apostolic Church is part of the Oriental Orthodox, that’s why I didn’t name them individually.
Also the Polish National Church (although a cleric here has told me that they have purported to “ordain” women as deacons), and a handful of other smaller groups.
Click to expand...
Even though they are very autonomous, the Polish National Church is part of the Old Catholic communion, which is why I didn’t name them individually either.

God Bless 🙂
 
dochawk said:
Bluntly, this is a “typical” Protestant issue of looking at one source or verse, and seeing everything else through it.

Are you unaware of the historic tension between the Augustinian and Cyprianic views of orders, and trying to use something else, or is this a deliberate attempt to mislead the faithful?

Even if we were to ignore the rest of the Church fathers and all that has been learned since, and then filter everything through your single quote, the necessity of episcopal transmission precludes the claims you made above.
Click to expand...
No my friend, that is a logical fallacy. There is no necessity of episcopal transmission. And in fact historically you can see that episcopal transmission was not always faithful. Just because a bishop has the responsibility to provide faithful ecclesiastical oversight of the doctrines taught in his see, doesn’t mean he necessarily does. Again, Eusebius of Nicomedia is a great example of this. And in fact, some of the great theologians of church were not bishops. The church in its wisdom created the office of bishop for the purpose of faithfully ministering over their areas of responsibility, but this should not be taken for granted as a given and should be evaluated based on the corpus of apostolic teaching handed down to us. That being said, my example of Irenaeus is spot on because he faithfully addressed the gnostic heresy in just the way that I have said, as did the theologians after him who addressed other christological heresies.
 
Last edited:
dochawk said:
the lack of understanding broke the chain, resulting in non-bishops that couldn’t create more bishops or priests.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is what I was saying. Apostolic Succession was no longer “an unbroken line of bishops” but rather a continuous “understanding.”

Once Apostolic Succession was based on a visible sign everyone could see. Now it is based on an interior adherence that no one can see.
 
The PNCC broke communion with the Old Catholic Church quite some time ago, and are now completely unaffiliated.

As to the original question, I haven’t read all the responses so most of this has probably been said already. In the view of the Catholic Church, the following non-Catholic churches have valid succession:

Eastern Orthodox
Oriental (Non-Chalcedonian) Orthodox
Ancient Church of the East
Assyrian Church of the East
Polish National Catholic Church

The Old Catholic Churches- valid orders exist within these communities, and at one time they were universally accepted, but practices such as female ordination and communion with the Anglicans now mean that validity cannot be immediately assumed. Each cleric must be investigated individually to determine whether or not his orders are valid.

The Old Roman Catholic Churches- broke with the OCC over 100 years ago. They appear to have valid succession via the Utrecht line and have never accepted female ordination (actually, except for not being in communion with Rome, they are very Catholic in theology and practice), though there are some who doubt their validity. I’m not aware of any statement from Rome specifically addressing these groups as has been done with others.
 
Last edited:
By this definition, Anglicans have Apostolic Succession. The first Archbishop of Canterbury was St Augustine (not to be confused with St Augustine of Hippo), who arrived in Kent in 597 AD, having been sent by Pope Gregory I on a mission to the English. He was accepted by King Æthelbert, on his conversion to Christianity, about the year 598
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top