Churches with valid apostolic sucession

[Vanny]

Does the RCC consider the Eastern Orthodox to have valid Apostolic succession? How about Anglicans or some Lutherans? I know that confessional Lutheran churches(of which I am currently a member) do not have that, as we have no bishops.
(I hope not to start arguments just wondering)
Does the RCC consider the EO to have valid sacraments? How about Lutherans?

 

[porthos11]

Does the RCC consider the Eastern Orthodox to have valid Apostolic succession? How about Anglicans or some Lutherans? I know that confessional Lutheran churches(of which I am currently a member) do not have that, as we have no bishops.
(I hope not to start arguments just wondering)
Does the RCC consider the EO to have valid sacraments? How about Lutherans?

Eastern Orthodox yes.
Oriental Orthodox yes.
Assyrian Church of the East yes.
Polish National Catholic Church yes.
Lutherans no.
Anglicans no.
All other Protestants no.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Eastern Orthodox - yes

Lutheran and Anglican - no

BUT, there are validly ordained RCC clergy who defect to those two denominations, I’m sure. So in their case, they are valid, but it stops with them.

 

[pablope]

Does the RCC consider the Eastern Orthodox to have valid Apostolic succession? How about Anglicans or some Lutherans? I know that confessional Lutheran churches(of which I am currently a member) do not have that, as we have no bishops.
(I hope not to start arguments just wondering)
How about Lutherans?

Lutherans…no, as Lutherans do not even recognize the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

And bishops should be ordained as per the canons of the EC of Nicea I/II and as far as I have seen, Lutherans do not follow the canons of Nicea as regards the ordination of bishops.

 

[Vanny]

Thanks to both of you for your responses
Does the RCc view confessions or confirmations that are in the EO as valid?

 

[Vanny]

Lutherans…no, as Lutherans do not even recognize the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

And bishops should be ordained as per the canons of the EC of Nicea I/II and as far as I have seen, Lutherans do not follow the canons of Nicea as regards the ordination of bishops.

Yes the WELS and LCMS do not even have bishops.
The ELCA did not used to.

 

[Vanny]

Eastern Orthodox yes.
Oriental Orthodox yes.
Assyrian Church of the East yes.
Polish National Catholic Church yes.
Lutherans no.
Anglicans no.
All other Protestants no.

Interesting thanks I was wondering about the OO

 

[Vonsalza]

Thanks to both of you for your responses
Does the RCc view confessions or confirmations that are in the EO as valid?

Yes. The RCC recognizes the sacraments of the EO, including confession and confirmation.

To maybe “head you off at the pass”, the RCC still does not consider the EO as being in the “fulness of truth” in the same way it considers itself to be. The RCC and EO have a complex relationship. One that I wishfully hope will result in full reunification some day.

 

[Vanny]

Yes. The RCC recognizes the sacraments of the EO, including confession and confirmation.

To maybe “head you off at the pass”, the RCC still does not consider the EO as being in the “fulness of truth” in the same way it considers itself to be. The RCC and EO have a complex relationship. One that I wishfully hope will result in full reunification some day.

Thanks!

 

[ChurchSoldier]

A fine point of clarification, there is valid Apostolic Succession, and Apostolic Succession recognized as valid by the Church.

There are Bishops and groups within denominations who have valid succession, but for a variety of reasons not authorized / recognized by the RCC. Often referred to as “valid” but not “licit”.

As will probably be mentioned, Roman Catholics should only acknowledge those with Succession which the Church recognizes.

Great question.

 

[Vanny]

A fine point of clarification, there is valid Apostolic Succession, and Apostolic Succession recognized as valid by the Church.

There are Bishops and groups within denominations who have valid succession, but for a variety of reasons not authorized / recognized by the RCC. Often referred to as “valid” but not “licit”.

As will probably be mentioned, Roman Catholics should only acknowledge those with Succession which the Church recognizes.

Great question.

so maybe Anglicans would be considered valid but not licit?
Just asking I’m not up on this subject. Thanks

 

[FabiusMaximus]

so maybe Anglicans would be considered valid but not licit?
Just asking I’m not up on this subject. Thanks

Anglicans are not considered to be valid at all.
The Catholic Church considers the rite of ordination created after the separation of the Church of England to have nullified their holy orders.

You can read Pope Leo XIII"s bull, Apostlicae Curae on the subject.
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

 

[GKC]

Anglicans are not considered to be valid at all.
The Catholic Church considers the rite of ordination created after the separation of the Church of England to have nullified their holy orders.

You can read Pope Leo XIII"s bull, Apostlicae Curae on the subject.
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

The form (Edwardian Ordinal), plus invalid sacramental intent, as demonstrated by the use of that form, was the logic in AC.

Anglicans have a different view of the matter (and the form and the intent), but the OP specified what the RCC position was, in the question, so that’s moot. But one should take note of the Polish National Catholic Church, and some portions of the Old Catholics, which the RCC does consider to have valid/illicit orders.

 

[steido01]

Yes the WELS and LCMS do not even have bishops.
The ELCA did not used to.

While WELS and LCMS do not usually call their bishops “bishops,” this statement isn’t technically accurate. For the sake of good order, Lutherans have District Presidents, who are ordained and excercise many of the duties a Catholic bishop normally would.

The difference in the understanding of the ministry should also be taken into account. Catholics believe that the ministry originates with the bishop while priests, deacons, etc. serve at his pleasure, simply deriving pieces of the bishop’s authority from him. Lutherans consider each pastor to be the local bishop. Associate pastors, elders, deaconesses, DCE’s etc. serve under the call and authority of the pastor’s office.

It can be seen more of a semantic difference than a substantive one.

Lutherans…no, as Lutherans do not even recognize the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Technically speaking, Lutherans do recognize holy orders. That why the Lutherans Confessions clearly state “No one is to preach or administer the Sacraments unless he be rightly called (and ordained).” In fact, Lutherans even recognize the holy orders of Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and other Christians who are called by the church and ordained by existing pastors/bishops with the laying on of hands.

Lutherans simply don’t consider it a sacrament, for the same reasons Lutherans recognize marriage yet do not considered it a sacrament: they do not believe the act itself brings God’s grace directly in the way that Baptism, Absolution and Holy Communion do.

And bishops should be ordained as per the canons of the EC of Nicea I/II and as far as I have seen, Lutherans do not follow the canons of Nicea as regards the ordination of bishops.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. Canon I deals with castration, which isn’t something Lutherans are into. Canon II stipulates that new converts cannot be ordained, and Lutherans observe that strictly. Canon III deals with unmarried women not being allowed to live with clergy - another point Lutherans strictly observe. If you’re referring to Canon IV, all it requires is the Bishop of the province to be present with at least three total bishops present at the selection. This happens even at the basic Lutheran ordination. The District President and generally all the pastors/bishops within the local circuit (and often others from within the district) are present. So with the Lutheran definition of bishop, usually 9-10 “bishops” are present. Keep in mind that Canon IV also isn’t mandatory; it leaves it up to the local Metropolitan as to how ordinations should happen.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

so maybe Anglicans would be considered valid but not licit?
Just asking I’m not up on this subject. Thanks

Yes, that is correct. At least for most men ordained by a male bishop who was consecrated by a male bishop, etc.

Since Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican Orders invalid in the Apostolica Curea in 1896 the Anglican Church connected with other churches having recognized Orders (Union of Ultrecht / Old Catholic and others) to “re-instate” validity had it actually been lost. Therefore, all bishops consecrated through the 1930’s had a bishop of valid Succession at their consecration.

About that time though, the Anglicans began embracing somewhat non-orthodox beliefs and practices (such as authorizing artificial birth control) which would’ve made recognition quite a bit more difficult. The Anglicans have since been devolving to the point now where the entire power structure in the West upholds non-Biblical teaching and practice. Which frankly, is why I am now Roman Catholic.

Therefore recognition won’t be happening anytime in the forseeable future. GKC is really the expert in this field, if you search for his name you will find a vast array of information. If you look at his earliest posts I believe there is a really in depth thread where he lays out many of the details. Though it can be summed up by his response earlier in this thread.

Thanks for asking!

 

[ChurchSoldier]

**While WELS and LCMS do not usually call their bishops “bishops,” this statement isn’t technically accurate. **For the sake of good order, Lutherans have District Presidents, who are ordained and excercise many of the duties a Catholic bishop normally would.

The difference in the understanding of the ministry should also be taken into account. Catholics believe that the ministry originates with the bishop while priests, deacons, etc. serve at his pleasure, simply deriving pieces of the bishop’s authority from him. Lutherans consider each pastor to be the local bishop. Associate pastors, elders, deaconesses, DCE’s etc. serve under the call and authority of the pastor’s office.

It can be seen more of a semantic difference than a substantive one.

Technically speaking, Lutherans do recognize holy orders. That why the Lutherans Confessions clearly state “No one is to preach or administer the Sacraments unless he be rightly called (and ordained).” In fact, Lutherans even recognize the holy orders of Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and other Christians who are called by the church and ordained by existing pastors/bishops with the laying on of hands.

Lutherans simply don’t consider it a sacrament, for the same reasons Lutherans recognize marriage yet do not considered it a sacrament: they do not believe the act itself brings God’s grace directly in the way that Baptism, Absolution and Holy Communion do.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. Canon I deals with castration, which isn’t something Lutherans are into. Canon II stipulates that new converts cannot be ordained, and Lutherans observe that strictly. Canon III deals with unmarried women not being allowed to live with clergy - another point Lutherans strictly observe. If you’re referring to Canon IV, all it requires is the Bishop of the province to be present with at least three total bishops present at the selection. This happens even at the basic Lutheran ordination. The District President and generally all the pastors/bishops within the local circuit (and often others from within the district) are present. So with the Lutheran definition of bishop, usually 9-10 “bishops” are present. Keep in mind that Canon IV also isn’t mandatory; it leaves it up to the local Metropolitan as to how ordinations should happen.

I believe the ELCS began the practice of calling their President’s “bishop” as part of the process of inter-communion / mutual recognition of Orders with the Episcopal Church. It had to do with the optics of a minister not being ordained by a bishop presiding at an Episcopal Service.

 

[steido01]

I believe the ELCS began the practice of calling their President’s “bishop” as part of the process of inter-communion / mutual recognition of Orders with the Episcopal Church. It had to do with the optics of a minister not being ordained by a bishop presiding at an Episcopal Service.

Correct. The Left-leaning ELCA changed the title of their middle and upper judicatory leaders to ‘bishop’ so they could share pulpit and altar with their Left-leaning Anglican counterparts. (That agreement is a sad fleecing for so many reasons, but that’s another thread…)

District President, Overpastor, Bishop, One-eyed-one-horned-flying-purple-people-eater, or simply Pastor – it’s just what they’re called. The real definition is in what they do.

 

[Vanny]

Wow great and very interesting answers, everyone. And a lot for me to chew on.

 

[GKC]

Yes, that is correct. At least for most men ordained by a male bishop who was consecrated by a male bishop, etc.

Since Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican Orders invalid in the Apostolica Curea in 1896 the Anglican Church connected with other churches having recognized Orders (Union of Ultrecht / Old Catholic and others) to “re-instate” validity had it actually been lost. Therefore, all bishops consecrated through the 1930’s had a bishop of valid Succession at their consecration.

About that time though, the Anglicans began embracing somewhat non-orthodox beliefs and practices (such as authorizing artificial birth control) which would’ve made recognition quite a bit more difficult. The Anglicans have since been devolving to the point now where the entire power structure in the West upholds non-Biblical teaching and practice. Which frankly, is why I am now Roman Catholic.

Therefore recognition won’t be happening anytime in the forseeable future. GKC is really the expert in this field, if you search for his name you will find a vast array of information. If you look at his earliest posts I believe there is a really in depth thread where he lays out many of the details. Though it can be summed up by his response earlier in this thread.

Thanks for asking!

GKC thanks you for the very kind words, and offers a few more, relevant here.The Bonn Agreement, 1931,and the subsequent practice of joint episcopal consecrations of Old Catholics and Anglican bishops, starting in 1932 (and with the PNCC in 1946), were not undertaken to re-instate anything, anywhere (assuming there was a need for it). It was a result of a long ongoing ecumenical dialogue between Canterbury and the OCs, to obtain a full state of communion, running back about 75 years. See Moss/THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT. It certainly would seem that such joint consecration would infuse valid orders into Anglicanism (again, assuming they were not already present), but that is a subject that the RCC has not definitively commented on.

And yes, Anglicans can certainly be wonky. Motley, even. More so, as time goes by.

 

[mattp0625]

I believe the ELCS began the practice of calling their President’s “bishop” as part of the process of inter-communion / mutual recognition of Orders with the Episcopal Church. It had to do with the optics of a minister not being ordained by a bishop presiding at an Episcopal Service.

Three key names to know regarding the Lutheran orders and office of bishops (i.e. claim to apostolic succession), though we may be describing different denominations;

King Gustav I
Laurentius Petri
Johannes Bugenhagen

These are the men that initiated the orders and office on behalf of Luther.

The RCC does not view these as licit.