Apostolic Succession

[Cirdan_XII]

Can anybody help me understand more fully the principle of apostolic succession.

I understand that it is based on that fact that Jesus conferred leadership of the Church on Peter. So Peter was the first pope and the other apostles were the first bishops. Now these new bishops consecrated further priests and bishops, and those bishops consecrated more and so it went on through the centuries with the result that in principle every priest and bishop around today can theoretically trace a direct line of consecration that goes back to Jesus himself, and the validity of sacraments administered by them is upheld by that.

Now in the Protestant Churches, Orthodox Churches etc there are also priests nd bishops and I understand that according to the apostolic succession these are also valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church up to a point because the priests who went into the first protestant churches were Catholic before that and so took the sacrament with them. Does this mean baptisms and other sacraments administered by them are valid?

 

[rkrispies]

IIRC, Eastern Orthodox orders are considered valid by the Catholic Church. Therefore, those bishops have maintained Apostolic Succession.

I’m fairly certain that most Protestant denominations do not have valid orders. I know this is true for Anglicans, as their priests must be ordained if they join the Catholic Church.

However, Catholics recognize all baptisms performed using the proper matter (water) and form (Trinitarian) so long as the intent to baptize as we understand it was present. Thus, most Protestant baptisms and Orthodox baptisms are considered valid.

Eucharist is considered valid for Eastern Orthodox, although they generally do not allow Catholics to partake. Protestant “Communion” is not valid.

Marriages I think are still considered valid, but I’m not 100% on that. Many Protestant denominations do not have the same sacraments as Catholics, if they recognize them at all.

Come to think of it, I think sacraments administered by an EO priest/bishop are considered valid by the Catholic Church, regardless.

I may be wrong on some of these, however . . . no doubt if I am, I will be swiftly corrected.

 

[1ke]

Now in the Protestant Churches, Orthodox Churches etc there are also priests nd bishops and I understand that according to the apostolic succession these are also valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church up to a point because the priests who went into the first protestant churches were Catholic before that and so took the sacrament with them. Does this mean baptisms and other sacraments administered by them are valid?

Not correct.

Orthodox Churches have valid Apostolic Succession as do some other schismatic Chuches who have valid bishops who have continued to validly but illicitly ordain priests and consecrate other bishops.

Protestants do not. Not all of the reformers were priests-- Calvin was a lawyer, for example. And, it takes validly ordained bishops to confer Holy Orders. Most protestant sects abandoned the concept of the priesthood entirely. They either did not have valid bishops or did not retain the proper rite of ordination or valid understanding of the sacraments, or retain sacraments at all.

Baptism and marriage are valid in non-Catholic, Trinitarian ecclesial communities.

For baptism, it is because the Church makes allowances for non-ordained to baptize, since baptism is necessary for salvation.

For marriage, the sacrament is valid because the spouses confer the sacrament on each other. The priest is official the witness in Catholic marriages under Canon Law (and there can be a non-ordained witness if designated by the bishop for good reason).

 

[AJV]

Can anybody help me understand more fully the principle of apostolic succession.

I understand that it is based on that fact that Jesus conferred leadership of the Church on Peter. So Peter was the first pope and the other apostles were the first bishops. Now these new bishops consecrated further priests and bishops, and those bishops consecrated more and so it went on through the centuries with the result that in principle every priest and bishop around today can theoretically trace a direct line of consecration that goes back to Jesus himself, and the validity of sacraments administered by them is upheld by that.

I guess this is not the most helpful but I think what you actually want explanation of is the validity of the episcopal ordination.

Actually, this is an issue that I am considering writing a paper on in the near future - exploring the pre and post Vatican II views on the idea of apostolic succession. A lot of people, including most clergy, often assume that “Apostolic Succession” means a valid (episcopal) ordination and treat the two as synonymous. In fact, it is does not, and the two are not, strictly speaking.

Apostolic Succession means to succeed to the governing, teaching and sanctifying authority in the Church. This is, ignoring some nuances, entirely different from being validly ordained. That is why, interestingly, the majority pre-Vatican II theological and canonical view denied that even the Eastern Orthodox Churches possessed the Apostolic Succession when separated from Rome, although they recognized Eastern Orthodox bishops as being validly ordained.

I think some part of the change and the attribution of Apostolic Succession to the separated Churches is due to the attribution to some power of governing transmitted within the rite of Ordination instead of wholly by an external mandate (e.g. a Papal decree). I am not entirely sure on this point, because many connected issues are still debated by theologians and canonists, and am still reading up to p(name removed by moderator)oint the various theological views that lead to the somewhat radical declaration.

 

[corsair]

Priests do not pass on succession, only Bishop do. Therefore even when a Catholic priest joined the reform they could not pass on succession.

So when a Bishop joined the reformation he became an “apostate” Bishop by denying the Pope. so he could not pass on succession either.

Over the centuries there have been many Bishops leaving the church. Several in the recent past; seems there was a Vietmese Bishop that had been conviced to run about the world “consecrating” bishops for various schismatic orders. SSPV comes to mind along with CMRI.
I may be wrong on some of this but I’m sure someone will jump right in and correct me.

 

[WorkerPriest]

Your paper would be an interesting one. Perhaps it will tease out better the distinctions between what is considered “valid” versus what is considered “licit.” These, to my observation, speak to categories of theology versus canon, and what is ontologically true versus permissively acknowledged.

Most Lutherans in the world have an episcopate, and many of them can trace their bishops back to the Apostles. For those who have combined the duties of bishops and priests into one Office, they can trace their prebyterial line in the same fashion, if need be. And for that factious minority which insists on congregational ordination without other pastors for the laying on of hand in the Rite of Ordination, well, at least they can trace a Baptismal lineage back to the Apostles (since no one baptizes himself, nor ordains himself, in any Lutheran communion I’m familiar with, and all the gifts of the church are understood to be at least latently present in Baptismal grace… hence St. Augustine’s old axiom about to two stranded laymen, who in an emergency, one may baptize the other, then the newly baptized may absolve the latter.)

So, while my original ordaining body had bishops considered “valid” by Rome (having received their Apostolic Succession through the Old Catholics and Orthodox,) the Lutheran body I currently serve with preserves a succession of presbyterial ordination within congregational contexts. While I have no problem recognizing the power and efficacy of the Word and Sacraments administered in this system, I have been able at a few critical moments, to ease the conscience of some who found my orders “valid but illicit” in the Roman context.

Me thinks this will be a stumbling block of sorts for Lutheran and Roman reconcilliation, but God is able to do great things, often in spite of us.

Peace to you.

I guess this is not the most helpful but I think what you actually want explanation of is the validity of the episcopal ordination.

Actually, this is an issue that I am considering writing a paper on in the near future - exploring the pre and post Vatican II views on the idea of apostolic succession. A lot of people, including most clergy, often assume that “Apostolic Succession” means a valid (episcopal) ordination and treat the two as synonymous. In fact, it is does not, and the two are not, strictly speaking.

Apostolic Succession means to succeed to the governing, teaching and sanctifying authority in the Church. This is, ignoring some nuances, entirely different from being validly ordained. That is why, interestingly, the majority pre-Vatican II theological and canonical view denied that even the Eastern Orthodox Churches possessed the Apostolic Succession when separated from Rome, although they recognized Eastern Orthodox bishops as being validly ordained.

I think some part of the change and the attribution of Apostolic Succession to the separated Churches is due to the attribution to some power of governing transmitted within the rite of Ordination instead of wholly by an external mandate (e.g. a Papal decree). I am not entirely sure on this point, because many connected issues are still debated by theologians and canonists, and am still reading up to p(name removed by moderator)oint the various theological views that lead to the somewhat radical declaration.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Priests do not pass on succession, only Bishop do. Therefore even when a Catholic priest joined the reform they could not pass on succession.

So when a Bishop joined the reformation he became an “apostate” Bishop by denying the Pope. so he could not pass on succession either.

Over the centuries there have been many Bishops leaving the church. Several in the recent past; seems there was a Vietmese Bishop that had been conviced to run about the world “consecrating” bishops for various schismatic orders. SSPV comes to mind along with CMRI.
I may be wrong on some of this but I’m sure someone will jump right in and correct me.

Is this actual theological or is it tradition that has become canon law.
Whereas the ordination to the priesthood is a sacrament, the consecration of a bishop is not. So is maybe the difference between a priest and a bishop just an administrative detail rather than a point of great theological value? Just asking? So for example I guess for a lay person to ordain a priest for whatever reason wouild be a far greater apostasy than for a validly ordained bishop, but one who is in schism with the Church to ordain the same priest, even though neither ordination would be strictly speaking valid.

 

[1ke]

Is this actual theological or is it tradition that has become canon law.

No, it is not merely ecclesial law. It is doctrine.

Whereas the ordination to the priesthood is a sacrament, the consecration of a bishop is not.

It is only a bishop who can do either of these things. And, yes, consecration to the episcopacy is part of the sacrament of Holy Orders. There are three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

See here:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a6.htm#III

So is maybe the difference between a priest and a bishop just an administrative detail rather than a point of great theological value?

Nope. It is doctrinal and central to the teaching of the Church.

So for example I guess for a lay person to ordain a priest for whatever reason wouild be a far greater apostasy than for a validly ordained bishop, but one who is in schism with the Church to ordain the same priest, even though neither ordination would be strictly speaking valid.

Neither a lay person nor a priest has the ability to ordain anyone. Their attemp to do so is invalid and meaningless.

A schismatic bishop does possess this power by the very nature of being a bishop. His ordinations would be illicit under canon law but completely valid (presuming valid matter and proper form).

 

[Cirdan_XII]

His ordinations would be illicit under canon law but completely valid (presuming valid matter and proper form).

The difference between illicit and invalid is one I’ve been hearing a lot on this forum lately. What exactly does the difference constitute? If an illicitly ordained priest or bishop wanted to become a “proper” priest, he would have to go through the ordination again I guess. So effectively he wasn’t a priest at all. Or am I missing something here?

And no matter whether a priest’s consecration is illicit or not valid, I should not knowingly attend masses said by such a person, should I? And if I do attend such a mass for whetever reason I am not fulffilling my Sunday obligation. So where is the difference for me?

 

[WorkerPriest]

Bound by the canons of the Roman Catholic Church, the differences for you would be slight.

However, from a Roman perspective, the differences come into play in their understanding (or perhaps, assurance) that the sacraments administered are actually delivering what Christ intended them to. So, when Rome recognizes an ordination as valid, they also recognize the sacraments administered by that priest who has been validly ordained. If Rome considers the ordination invalid, they have significant doubts about the validity of the sacraments administered by such an individual, and whether or not they are efficacious (with the exception of Holy Baptism, and Holy Matrimony.) There are parallels to this idea in Eastern Orthodox and Anglican communions as well.

The blurred area comes in the arena of those who have been validly ordained, but not according to the laws of the Roman Catholic Church (or the laws of the Orthodox, or Anglican, etc…) hence they are considered valid, but not licit. Such priests, including the Eastern Orthodox, some Anglicans and Lutherans, Old Catholics, etc., while their ordinations are considered valid and the sacraments they administer are considered efficacious, they do not conform to the ecclesiastical laws of Rome and thus are illicit.

In regular times and circumstances, it is improper (against canon law, I believe) for a Roman Catholic to seek the sacraments from those not under the canons of Rome. However, because Rome recognizes the validity of the sacraments in some of these seperated communions, they allow the Roman faithful to received the sacraments from them in times of great danger or urgency, when their own priests are not available… and vice versa.

To put it another way, as Lutheran, I may request the sacraments from a Roman Catholic priest were I in danger of death and another Lutheran priest or bishop was not available to me, and the Roman priest would be allowed under those grave circumstances to administer them to me (pending his judgment of my disposition.) Likewise, if a Roman Catholic were in fear of death and had no Roman priest who could tend to him, he could request the sacraments from me, and I would tend to him as a fellow Christian and servant of Christ, and could salve his conscience by assuring him that even according to Rome’s strict standards, my Holy Orders are considered valid, if illicit.

That’s the distinction, I believe. Naturally, I am glad to be educated or corrected.

Peace to you.

PS-- as to the ordination question you raise, it’s an individual assesment and decision by the diocesan bishop I believe. If a priest from outside the Roman communion is found to be validly ordained, they will not be re-ordained (just like a validly baptized Christian is not re-baptized upon full communion with Rome.) However, if there’s any doubt, they may be “provisionally” ordained, or simply re-ordained alltogether, to ensure there’s no doubt regarding their Holy Orders among the faithful. Pax.

The difference between illicit and invalid is one I’ve been hearing a lot on this forum lately. What exactly does the difference constitute? If an illicitly ordained priest or bishop wanted to become a “proper” priest, he would have to go through the ordination again I guess. So effectively he wasn’t a priest at all. Or am I missing something here?

And no matter whether a priest’s consecration is illicit or not valid, I should not knowingly attend masses said by such a person, should I? And if I do attend such a mass for whetever reason I am not fulffilling my Sunday obligation. So where is the difference for me?

 

[1ke]

The difference between illicit and invalid is one I’ve been hearing a lot on this forum lately. What exactly does the difference constitute?

Illicit means in violation of canon law or in defiance of/without permission of the Pope or a Bishop. The ordination is still valid, therefore the sacraments they perform are also valid, but illicit.

Invalid means not valid. As in, no sacrament took place.

If an illicitly ordained priest or bishop wanted to become a “proper” priest, he would have to go through the ordination again I guess.

No, this is not correct. If they are validly ordained, they cannot be ordained again. They would have to fulfill other requirements established by the Bishop in order to receive faculties to minister in the diocese. That might be education and evaluation in the seminary, an application process to be accepted by the Bishop for ministry, or it might be a time of spiritual reflection/retreat/penance for the illicit ordination, etc. But, ordination itself cannot be repeated.

So effectively he wasn’t a priest at all. Or am I missing something here?

If he is validly ordained he is 100% a priest.

And no matter whether a priest’s consecration is illicit or not valid, I should not knowingly attend masses said by such a person, should I?

Correct, because they exercise their ordination illicitly. However, in danger of death, yes such a priest could give you last rites-- confession, communion, anointing.

And if I do attend such a mass for whetever reason I am not fulffilling my Sunday obligation.

Correct.