Apostolic Succession

[Redratfish]

I am slightly lost on this issue. I was talking to a Lutheran who made the claim that Lutheran’s also have an apostolic line, since Luther was once a priest.

I have also heard apostolic Succession used by Anglicans, however, I am not sure why they believe that, as King Henry was never in the clergy.

Finally, I do not understand how IF lutherans do not have apostolic succession, that the Orthodox churches do. The whole issue is confusing to me, and any help is greatly appreciated

 

[MarcoPolo]

Article on Anglican Succession.

As for Lutherans, someone can confirm me on this but I think 1) a bishop is needed for ordination; and 2) Luther was excommunicated and thus wouldn’t have lost almost all sacerdotal authority, except maybe celebrating mass in private.

 

[JonNC]

=Redratfish;7306675]I am slightly lost on this issue. I was talking to a Lutheran who made the claim that Lutheran’s also have an apostolic line, since Luther was once a priest.

Depends on whose view. For the Catholic Church, since Luther was not a bishop, he could not ordain. However, some Lutherans in Scandinavia did retain Bishops, and continue to ordain in AS, though their ordinations are not recognized by Rome.
Lutherans outside of AS maintain presbyter ordindation as valid by divine law.

I have also heard apostolic Succession used by Anglicans, however, I am not sure why they believe that, as King Henry was never in the clergy.

King Henry would have had nothing to do with it - it would be the bishops. In addition, modern Anglicans have lines through Old Catholics, known as the “Dutch touch”. And continuing from there, ELCA Lutherans now ordain in conjunction with Anglican lines in the TEC.

Finally, I do not understand how IF lutherans do not have apostolic succession, that the Orthodox churches do. The whole issue is confusing to me, and any help is greatly appreciated

Again, it has to do with bishops, also the way orders are performed, etc. Form, intent., and the like. I’m no expert but there are some here.

Jon

 

[ProVobis]

modern Anglicans have lines through Old Catholics, known as the “Dutch touch”. And continuing from there, ELCA Lutherans now ordain in conjunction with Anglican lines in the TEC.

Not so.

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

 

[runningdude]

King Henry would have had nothing to do with it - it would be the bishops. In addition, modern Anglicans have lines through Old Catholics, known as the “Dutch touch”. And continuing from there, ELCA Lutherans now ordain in conjunction with Anglican lines in the TEC.

I’ve heard that the “Dutch Touch” did not actually rectify the situation, because the Old Catholic bishop merely participated in the Anglican ceremony, which hadn’t been updated to correct the deficiency outlined in Apostolic Curae (see other poster’s link). Thus, unfortunately I believe the Anglican orders are still invalid

Anglican’s and Lutherans are considered Protestant communities by the Church.

 

[James224]

Depends on whose view. For the Catholic Church, since Luther was not a bishop, he could not ordain. However, some Lutherans in Scandinavia did retain Bishops, and continue to ordain in AS, though their ordinations are not recognized by Rome.
Lutherans outside of AS maintain presbyter ordindation as valid by divine law.

King Henry would have had nothing to do with it - it would be the bishops. In addition, modern Anglicans have lines through Old Catholics, known as the “Dutch touch”. And continuing from there, ELCA Lutherans now ordain in conjunction with Anglican lines in the TEC.

Again, it has to do with bishops, also the way orders are performed, etc. Form, intent., and the like. I’m no expert but there are some here.

Jon

First, I want to say that I have a very good friend who is Lutheran like yourself - Missouri Synod. We’ve had some good talks and the Lutherans have retained much of the ancient liturgy. As far as succession is concerned with the Lutherans, it ended with Luther. There was probably legitimate bishops for awhile but when they died, the replacements were not in succession. Even with the legitimate bishops, their ordinations weren’t licit. So it ended.

Concerning the Anglicans, succession ended the same way. Henry VIII was a legitimate bishop before the schism but his ordinations after the schism weren’t licit. So it ended.

 

[JonNC]

First, I want to say that I have a very good friend who is Lutheran like yourself - Missouri Synod. We’ve had some good talks and the Lutherans have retained much of the ancient liturgy. As far as succession is concerned with the Lutherans, it ended with Luther. There was probably legitimate bishops for awhile but when they died, the replacements were not in succession. Even with the legitimate bishops, their ordinations weren’t licit. So it ended.

Concerning the Anglicans, succession ended the same way. Henry VIII was a legitimate bishop before the schism but his ordinations after the schism weren’t licit. So it ended.

From a Catholic perspective, you are correct, which is why I started my post with, “It depends on whose view”.

Jon

 

[Spirithound]

I was talking to a Lutheran who made the claim that Lutheran’s also have an apostolic line, since Luther was once a priest.

I have also heard apostolic Succession used by Anglicans, however, I am not sure why they believe that, as King Henry was never in the clergy.

Finally, I do not understand how IF lutherans do not have apostolic succession, that the Orthodox churches do.

For a valid ordination, you need

1. the minister - a validly-ordained bishop,
2. the matter - a validly-ordained priest
3. the form - the essential prayers, laying on of hands, and perhaps anointing with sacred chrism
4. the intent - to ordain to the ministerial episcopate.

Luther could not have ordained anyone, since he was not a bishop. If a Catholic bishop had become Lutheran, he could have ordained other bishops. As far as I know, the Lutheran lines of Apostolic Succession died out, either from lack of form or intent, or they just might have stopped ordaining bishops. Scandinavian Lutheran lines might still be intact.

Anglicans had lost their Apostolic Succession because of a lack of form and intent, as determined by Pope Leo XIII, linked by a previous poster. That document was valid for the time that it was published, and for the putative bishops that it covered. In other words, it did not preclude the Anglicans regaining Apostolic Succession from another valid line.

The Communion of Utrecht, or Old Catholics maintained Apostolic Succession. Since they started celebrating ordinations in union with the Anglicans, valid Orders might have been restored. I do not know if Rome has spoken on whether they have. However, any ordination that the Anglicans or Old Catholics might attempt on a woman are invalid, as she is not valid matter, regardless of who is performing the rite. Consequently, if she then tries to ordain someone else, it will not be valid from her.

The Orthodox Churches maintained Apostolic Succession through proper form and intention, and only on valid matter by a valid minister.

Holy Orders are not lost by heresy or schism, but can only fail to be handed down through a defect of form, intent, or matter.

 

[mark_a]

I am slightly lost on this issue. I was talking to a Lutheran who made the claim that Lutheran’s also have an apostolic line, since Luther was once a priest.

I have also heard apostolic Succession used by Anglicans, however, I am not sure why they believe that, as King Henry was never in the clergy.

Finally, I do not understand how IF lutherans do not have apostolic succession, that the Orthodox churches do. The whole issue is confusing to me, and any help is greatly appreciated

Since the AS minded reformers considered themselves to have commandeered the ship, so to speak, do Catholics have licit AS in their present day congregations’ view? I hope not.

 

[Spirithound]

Concerning the Anglicans, succession ended the same way. Henry VIII was a legitimate bishop before the schism but his ordinations after the schism weren’t licit. So it ended.

King Henry VIII was never a bishop.

Apostolic Succession is still maintained through illicit ordinations. It is not maintained through invalid ordinations.

 

[mark_a]

I am slightly lost on this issue. I was talking to a Lutheran who made the claim that Lutheran’s also have an apostolic line, since Luther was once a priest.

I have also heard apostolic Succession used by Anglicans, however, I am not sure why they believe that, as King Henry was never in the clergy.

Finally, I do not understand how IF lutherans do not have apostolic succession, that the Orthodox churches do. The whole issue is confusing to me, and any help is greatly appreciated

Since the AS minded reformers considered themselves to have commandeered the ship, so to speak, do Catholics have licit AS in their present day congregations’ view? I hope not.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am slightly lost on this issue. I was talking to a Lutheran who made the claim that Lutheran’s also have an apostolic line, since Luther was once a priest.

I have also heard apostolic Succession used by Anglicans, however, I am not sure why they believe that, as King Henry was never in the clergy.

Finally, I do not understand how IF lutherans do not have apostolic succession, that the Orthodox churches do. The whole issue is confusing to me, and any help is greatly appreciated

The Lutheran is wrong or engaged in wishful thinking.

Only Bishops can ordain Bishops, and only Bishops can ordain priests. Consequently, since Luther was only a priest, he could not ordain new Bishops or new priests.

As for the Anglicans, you have to first keep in mind that three things are necessary for a valid sacrament: matter, form and intent. The Anglicans changed the form of their ordination (and possibly the intent, as well), and consequently, all subsequent ordinations were invalid.

The Orthodox have maintained a valid priesthood by adhering to the form, matter and intent of the Church’s original ordinations.

 

[mark_a]

I am slightly lost on this issue. I was talking to a Lutheran who made the claim that Lutheran’s also have an apostolic line, since Luther was once a priest.

I have also heard apostolic Succession used by Anglicans, however, I am not sure why they believe that, as King Henry was never in the clergy.

Finally, I do not understand how IF lutherans do not have apostolic succession, that the Orthodox churches do. The whole issue is confusing to me, and any help is greatly appreciated

Since the AS minded reformers considered themselves to have commandeered the ship, so to speak, do Catholics have licit AS in reformed present day congregations’ view?

I hope not.

 

[Spirithound]

Since the AS minded reformers considered themselves to have commandeered the ship, so to speak, do Catholics have licit AS in reformed present day congregations’ view?

I hope not.

Duly noted.