Churches with valid apostolic sucession

[jimkhong]

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.

Evangelical Lutherans in Europe do. The Church of Sweden does attempt to keep the apostolic succession. Of course it is not recognised by the Catholics but nevertheless they do claim apostolic succession together with the triple clergy orders. If anything much of their church organisation and vestments are still 16th century. Liturgically they are very much high church even though many of their doctrines are liberal - the Archbishop of Uppsala, head of the Church of Sweden whom Pope Francis met a few months ago is a woman.

 

[jimkhong]

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.

Correct me if I am wrong: Other than Orthodox (which is one category by itself) it is unlikely for a denomination to be valid but not licit. Valid but not licit would be SSPX and the Chinese government bishops?

 

[GKC]

Correct me if I am wrong: Other than Orthodox (which is one category by itself) it is unlikely for a denomination to be valid but not licit. Valid but not licit would be SSPX and the Chinese government bishops?

Selected Old Catholics, PNCC,

 

[commenter]

Correct me if I am wrong: Other than Orthodox (which is one category by itself) it is unlikely for a denomination to be valid but not licit. Valid but not licit would be SSPX and the Chinese government bishops?

Aside from the one argument of validity of apostolic succession - that Bishop X is validly ordained as a bishop - there is a parallel argument of what I may call “ordinary” authority. The SSPX has valid bishops, but they do not claim to have, nor does Rome recognize, any SSPX ordinaries. The Chinese Patriotic Church (i. e. government church) probably claims to have valid ordinaries - “Bishop X is ordinary over the Church in this city” - but Rome does not recognize this claim, even though Rome may recognize most or all the government bishops as bishops.

The same is true of the PNCC. Rome recognizes their bishop as ****a ****bishop, but not ****the ****bishop ****of ****any city, even if the PNCC states he is Bishop of Pittsburgh, for instance. A Catholic auxiliary bishop may not have full episcopal authority of any city, but he is named titular bishop ordinary of some defunct diocese, and delegated some episcopal authority over his real diocese by the ordinary. So the RCC auxiliary is a valid vicar (some episcopal authority) as well as a valid bishop.

In the RCC view, the local validly installed RCC ordinary is the real ordinary over all validly ordained but illicitly appointed clergy, including bishops. The SSPX is careful not to appoint “pastors” or establish “parishes”, even though chapels function almost like such. But other groups do in fact do so, such as PNCC. So the categories are not exactly equivalent.

 

[Vanny]

Evangelical Lutherans in Europe do. The Church of Sweden does attempt to keep the apostolic succession. Of course it is not recognised by the Catholics but nevertheless they do claim apostolic succession together with the triple clergy orders. If anything much of their church organisation and vestments are still 16th century. Liturgically they are very much high church even though many of their doctrines are liberal - the Archbishop of Uppsala, head of the Church of Sweden whom Pope Francis met a few months ago is a woman.

Thank you, very interesting. I had read something about this elsewhere about the Church of Sweden and apostolic succession.

 

[Vanny]

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.

Question: I am WELS (and have been LCMS) but have never seen an actual ordination of the pastor. Do the confessional Lutheran Churches ordain by laying on of hands? Is that how Apostolic Succession is passed down in RCC and EO churches?

 

[GKC]

Question: I am WELS (and have been LCMS) but have never seen an actual ordination of the pastor. Do the confessional Lutheran Churches ordain by laying on of hands? Is that how Apostolic Succession is passed down in RCC and EO churches?

And Anglican.

 

[steido01]

Question: I am WELS (and have been LCMS) but have never seen an actual ordination of the pastor. Do the confessional Lutheran Churches ordain by laying on of hands?

Yes, Confessional Lutherans ordain through the laying on of hands. Even the liberal Lutherans do (When one’s theology is unorthodox, employing traditional outward trappings can be an effective means of masking the rot within. ). Usually the District President/Bishop leads the actual rite, with pastors from the surrounding circuit or district joining in for the actual laying on of hands. Because Lutherans understand each pastor to be a true “bishop” for his congregation(s), there are typically more than just three bishops present for an ordination.

Lutherans understand the power to ordain to the pastoral office to come from the church, in general, and to be exercised by the congregation, locally, and to be safeguarded by those who are already ordained, specifically. The actual Rite of Ordination and the Laying on of Hands doesn’t confer any magical powers or any “greater grace” on the man becoming pastor, but rather confirms his call to be divine and accepts his authority to administer Word and Sacrament to, for, and on behalf of the church. It’s proper teaching and proper administration of the Sacraments that Confessional Lutherans use to measure whether one was ordained in Apostolic Succession, not necessarily who laid hands on whom (though it’s certainly a helpful tool in determining whether one likely comes from sound doctrine).

Video of an LCMS ordination: youtube.com/watch?v=m7Mc2tvRSKo

I should note that I cannot vouch for how WELS ordains its pastors nowadays or whether all of its churches maintain the laying on of hands. WELS has an understanding of the Office of Holy Ministry that is decidedly outside of Lutheran orthodoxy. WELS erroneously believes that Christ did not actually establish a pastoral office; merely that He gave the church a general sort of permission to create offices as it requires them. This is the single-most divisive issue that separates WELS from LCMS. Under WELS’ weak theology on the issue, there’s really little to keep, say, some guy who starts his own “church house” or even a woman from playing pastor, other than social scolding. This is the source of the saying: “WELS will have a female pastor before it ever allows female suffrage at voters’ assemblies.” In fact, on at least two occasions, WELS has permitted females to preside over the Sacrament when no men were present! It is a most un-Lutheran practice, stemming from most un-Lutheran belief. Until WELS confesses its error and admits that Christ did specifically set up a pastoral office, there cannot be full unity between LCMS and WELS.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I have a question for any non Catholics here who hold to apostolic succession.

When you hear a Catholic say that your orders are invalid, or your Eucharist is invalid, do you care either way?

I ask because I’m former Anglican and it seems my former pastor was quite offended by this claim. He used to scoff and say “the Roman Church thinks they are the only church in existence” lol.

And so I do not think this is wise practice, to tell non Catholics that their practices are invalid, even if it’s technically true according to canon law. Doesn’t mean what they are doing holds no value… and we come across as arrogant in the process.

 

[steido01]

I have a question for any non Catholics here who hold to apostolic succession.

When you hear a Catholic say that your orders are invalid, or your Eucharist is invalid, do you care either way?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[GKC]

I have a question for any non Catholics here who hold to apostolic succession.

When you hear a Catholic say that your orders are invalid, or your Eucharist is invalid, do you care either way?

I ask because I’m former Anglican and it seems my former pastor was quite offended by this claim. He used to scoff and say “the Roman Church thinks they are the only church in existence” lol.

And so I do not think this is wise practice, to tell non Catholics that their practices are invalid, even if it’s technically true according to canon law. Doesn’t mean what they are doing holds no value… and we come across as arrogant in the process.

I’ll stretch a principle again, but I might not in the future. Just say “And how about them Anglicans?”, in the inquiry. If you want to know, that is.

No. No offense. Given that Apostolicae curae has been a hobby of mine for over 20 year, I often have had to explain the history to the average RC I’ve talked with, on this board, over the years. I always tell folk that any faithful RC should affirm AC, as in the case of any RC teaching, fully, and at the appropriate level of theological certainty. Doesn’t offend me at all.

And not to proclaim that judgement, on the part of the RCC, would lead to considerable confusion, on many things. Clarity is best.

 

[Faithdancer]

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!

I would add, and gently correct-- not all Anglicans are members of The Episcopal Church or of the Anglican Communion centered on Canterbury. And if the Church of England continues it’s apparent slide into secularism and heterodoxy, you will see more and larger groups of Anglicans leaving the Anglican Communion.

 

[GKC]

I would add, and gently correct-- not all Anglicans are members of The Episcopal Church or of the Anglican Communion centered on Canterbury. And if the Church of England continues it’s apparent slide into secularism and heterodoxy, you will see more and larger groups of Anglicans leaving the Anglican Communion.

A point I’ve made here for many years, from time to time, now and then.

But as to the future, my crystal ball is cloudy. The exodus around us here in the US, as far as folk turning up on our orthodox doorstep looking for refuge, has slowed. I think most in TEC/CoE are reasonably satisfied, by this time

But I am no prophet.

 

[Faithdancer]

I think the ACNA has siphoned off many disenchanted Episcopalians, yes? It remains to be seen how long the ACNA holds together, though, with it’s recent entry into the Anglican Communion and the varying views on women’s ordination within the various ACNA dioceses (I believe most do ordain women to the priesthood; none are allowed to consecrate female bishops).
Other than that, I agree about the stagnant growth of the real traditional jurisdictions. If the ACA, ACC, APCK, etc. could overcome their differences and merge, perhaps they would all have a better chance of long term survival?

 

[GKC]

I think the ACNA has siphoned off many disenchanted Episcopalians, yes? It remains to be seen how long the ACNA holds together, though, with it’s recent entry into the Anglican Communion and the varying views on women’s ordination within the various ACNA dioceses (I believe most do ordain women to the priesthood; none are allowed to consecrate female bishops).
Other than that, I agree about the stagnant growth of the real traditional jurisdictions. If the ACA, ACC, APCK, etc. could overcome their differences and merge, perhaps they would all have a better chance of long term survival?

Siphoned off, or rescued 5 dioceses, and lots of bits and pieces, yes.

In what sense do you see it as a member of the Communion? It is true that it is in communion with Communion member jurisdictions (there was a thread on this a while back) but in the Communion formally, no.

As to most ordaining females, not sure. But it is a given that such is permitted. Bishops, no, as you say.

Getting together is always a good idea, and a continuing will-o-the- wisp, for the extant Continuum jurisdictions. And in October, another attempt to make a start will occur, with joint synods amongst the ACC, ACA, APA and Diocese of the Holy Cross (as customary, the APCK is standing aside). The outcome is expected to be establishment of full communion (communio in sacris) among the four, with plans and hopes for further integration and unity, leading to the closest approximation to the situation after the St. Louis meeting in 1977 in years.

Hopes are high. History is a backdrop. We shall see.

 

[Faithdancer]

Siphoned off, or rescued 5 dioceses, and lots of bits and pieces, yes.

In what sense do you see it as a member of the Communion? It is true that it is in communion with Communion member jurisdictions (there was a thread on this a while back) but in the Communion formally, no.

As to most ordaining females, not sure. But it is a given that such is permitted. Bishops, no, as you say.

Getting together is always a good idea, and a continuing will-o-the- wisp, for the extant Continuum jurisdictions. And in October, another attempt to make a start will occur, with joint synods amongst the ACC, ACA, APA and Diocese of the Holy Cross (as customary, the APCK is standing aside). The outcome is expected to be establishment of full communion (communio in sacris) among the four, with plans and hopes for further integration and unity, leading to the closest approximation to the situation after the St. Louis meeting in 1977 in years.

Hopes are high. History is a backdrop. We shall see.

Yes GKC, my pastor is going to that joint synod. Hope indeed!
And I don’t really know exactly how many ACNA dioceses ordain female priests. Seems like most, out here.

 

[GKC]

Yes GKC, my pastor is going to that joint synod. Hope indeed!
And I don’t really know exactly how many ACNA dioceses ordain female priests. Seems like most, out here.

Institutionally, I wish the ACNA well. But for a number of reasons I would not look there for a home.

 

[JonNC]

Siphoned off, or rescued 5 dioceses, and lots of bits and pieces, yes.

In what sense do you see it as a member of the Communion? It is true that it is in communion with Communion member jurisdictions (there was a thread on this a while back) but in the Communion formally, no.

As to most ordaining females, not sure. But it is a given that such is permitted. Bishops, no, as you say.

Getting together is always a good idea, and a continuing will-o-the- wisp, for the extant Continuum jurisdictions. And in October, another attempt to make a start will occur, with joint synods amongst the ACC, ACA, APA and Diocese of the Holy Cross (as customary, the APCK is standing aside). The outcome is expected to be establishment of full communion (communio in sacris) among the four, with plans and hopes for further integration and unity, leading to the closest approximation to the situation after the St. Louis meeting in 1977 in years.

Hopes are high. History is a backdrop. We shall see.

My priest and bishop seem hopeful for this.
ACNA is not part largely because of female ordination, AFAIK.

 

[GKC]

My priest and bishop seem hopeful for this.
ACNA is not part largely because of female ordination, AFAIK.

That and a few other things. The primary point being that the Oct. meeting and planned further steps to unify, are being done amongst Continuum jurisdictions. The ACNA. technically, is not one such. And has no desire to be. They are the inheritors of the original mindset of the first exodus of disaffected Anglicans (who, perhaps not coincidentally) had a very similar name, immediately after St. Louis, in 1978. They are in formal communion with member jurisdictions of the Worldwide Anglican Communion (Canterbury), and AFAIK, would not be opposed to replacing TEC in it.

Continuers, who outgrew the idea that Canterbury would recognize them, as the true inheritors of orthodox Anglicanism in the country, have no desire to reunite with the Communion. Not unless something really earth-shaking would occur, to make the place livable. Would be a good idea for them to manage some unification among themselves, OTOH.

But good wishes to the ACNA, sort of TEC, from around the 70s, sort of reborn.

 

[Faithdancer]

That and a few other things. The primary point being that the Oct. meeting and planned further steps to unify, are being done amongst Continuum jurisdictions. The ACNA. technically, is not one such. And has no desire to be. They are the inheritors of the original mindset of the first exodus of disaffected Anglicans (who, perhaps not coincidentally) had a very similar name, immediately after St. Louis, in 1978. They are in formal communion with member jurisdictions of the Worldwide Anglican Communion (Canterbury), and AFAIK, would not be opposed to replacing TEC in it.

Continuers, who outgrew the idea that Canterbury would recognize them, as the true inheritors of orthodox Anglicanism in the country, have no desire to reunite with the Communion. Not unless something really earth-shaking would occur, to make the place livable. Would be a good idea for them to manage some unification among themselves, OTOH.

But good wishes to the ACNA, sort of TEC, from around the 70s, sort of reborn.

Totally agree. There is tension within the ACNA re: women’s ordination. I think once it is the norm, it can be hard to avoid further “progressivism’,” as history has shown. So far the ACNA is holding firm against same sex “marriage.” But if Canterbury caves in…