Methodist Apostolic Succession

[jinc1019]

Ahhh but that is exactly the point it was the resormation that threw out the “Sacrament of Holy Orders” without which you can’t have a validly ordained Bishop or Priest or Deacon.

Can you find a Sacrament of Holy Order in the Methodist church? NOPE it is not there they only recognize 2 sacraments!

Check Mate!

Just because it’s not called a sacrament doesn’t mean it isn’t valid apostolic succession. You are assuming, based on your Catholic beliefs, that it MUST be considered a sacrament to be valid. But what makes you think that, other than because the Catholic Church told you so?

 

[jinc1019]

Which they are, as evidenced by the dozens of Anglican clergyman re-ordained when they entered the Catholic Church. There are valid Catholic or Orthodox priests who became Anglican ministers, but they are a tiny exception.

Some Anglican clergyman leaving their church for the Catholic Church and being re-ordained doesn’t prove anything about whether apostolic succession is true in the Anglican Church, it is only evidence of the Catholic position on the matter and the desire of many Anglican priests to be apart of the Catholic Church.

 

[jinc1019]

Interesting… Too bad Jesus founded His Church on Simon/Peter/Cephas/The Rock and not Paul.

It’s clear that some will stop at nothing to portray the illusion of legitimacy.

I definitely agree that Jesus found his Church with Peter, and the other apostles as well, and not exclusively with Paul. But, I am not sure who here is making that argument.

 

[JerryZ]

No, they are simply using the words used by the Savior himself when he said, «τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.» There is nothing at all heretical in pointing out that the Eucharist is an anamnesis.

It is an issue though when that is the only thing they see and not our Lord’s words:

John 6:53 Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.

 

[jinc1019]

It is an issue though when that is the only thing they see and not our Lord’s words:

John 6:53 Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.

Methodists teach the Real Presence. It’s as plain as that. Do they teach it the same way as the Catholic Church, no…but they still teach it.

 

[rfournier103]

Interesting… Too bad Jesus founded His Church on Simon/Peter/Cephas/The Rock and not Paul.

It’s clear that some will stop at nothing to portray the illusion of legitimacy.

I definitely agree that Jesus found his Church with Peter, and the other apostles as well, and not exclusively with Paul. But, I am not sure who here is making that argument.

If there IS a claim of Methodist Apostolic Succession, would it not stand to reason they would claim a different Apostle than Peter as the starting point? If Peter was the first pope, how could they claim Peter was the first link in the chain going back to Jesus? Wouldn’t it be too close a tie to Catholicism for the Methodists’ comfort?

 

[Zooey]

There is a story of dubious credibility that John Wesley was consecrated Bishop by Greek Orthodox Bishop Erasmus of Arcadia in London in 1763. This detailed in the link above. I wonder if Wesley were indeed so consecrated, whether he would have taken greater pains to preserve that line among those whom he later ordained. It is an odd story, but odd stories sometimes are true (witness some of the unbelievable scandals going around these days).

I don’t know what words are used to ordain Methodist bishops. If the apostolic succession were valid, it would not be valid with female bishops (at least as far as Catholics, Orthodox, and conservative Anglicans are concerned), but if there were always a male bishop as co-consecrator the line could be intact.

Actually, I have always been told that he was consecrated by a Jacobite Scottish bishop who had apostolic succession. (Susannah Wesley was a flaming Jacobite*, you see. Even put her husband out of the house for a year over it).

Methodists teach the Real Presence. It’s as plain as that. Do they teach it the same way as the Catholic Church, no…but they still teach it.

Thank you. This is correct.

*So am I. A Jacobite, I mean. I am not flaming anything. Unless somebody is picking on my cats, in which case all bets are off…but I digress.

 

[jinc1019]

If there IS a claim of Methodist Apostolic Succession, would it not stand to reason they would claim a different Apostle than Peter as the starting point? If Peter was the first pope, how could they claim Peter was the first link in the chain going back to Jesus? Wouldn’t it be too close a tie to Catholicism for the Methodists’ comfort?

No. This is exactly why they claim. They claim they have apostolic succession through the Church of England, which was established by Rome.

 

[jinc1019]

Actually, I have always been told that he was consecrated by a Jacobite Scottish bishop who had apostolic succession. (Susannah Wesley was a flaming Jacobite*, you see. Even put her husband out of the house for a year over it).

Thank you. This is correct.

*So am I. A Jacobite, I mean. I am not flaming anything. Unless somebody is picking on my cats, in which case all bets are off…but I digress.

Zooey, I have never heard this…Where did you get this information? Do you have any sources for it? I would be very interested in reading about this.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Methodists teach the Real Presence. It’s as plain as that. Do they teach it the same way as the Catholic Church, no…but they still teach it.

Former United Methodist here.

The Real Presence is a traditional Methodist belief and one I personally was raised in, but it is by no means universal or even, in my limited experience, remotely normative in the modern United Methodist Church. I recall one Sunday sermon in which a pastor preached that we should not call Communion a “mere” symbol, because symbols have such importance in our lives. The focus was on the importance of communion, but the ultimate message implied a rejection of the Real Presence both on the part of the pastor and also, very reasonably presumed by the pastor, on the part of the congregation.

 

[jinc1019]

Former United Methodist here.

The Real Presence is a traditional Methodist belief and one I personally was raised in, but it is by no means universal or even, in my limited experience, remotely normative in the modern United Methodist Church. I recall one Sunday sermon in which a pastor preached that we should not call Communion a “mere” symbol, because symbols have such importance in our lives. The focus was on the importance of communion, but the ultimate message implied a rejection of the Real Presence both on the part of the pastor and also, very reasonably presumed by the pastor, on the part of the congregation.

Wow. But in fairness, you can find heretical pastors in every religion.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

No. This is exactly why they claim. They claim they have apostolic succession through the Church of England, which was established by Rome.

The first Methodist bishop, or so I’ve always been told by my Methodist family, was an American presbyter consecrated a bishop by fellow presbyters. John Wesley, a lifelong Anglican, strongly disagreed with the consecration and condemned this first Methodist bishop as a “false bishop”. I’m not aware of any subsequent conversions of Anglican bishops to Methodism, and have long assumed that Methodist bishops have no connection to Anglican bishops through episcopal consecration, but rather originate in these kinds of lines that arose among groups of Methodist presbyters.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Wow. But in fairness, you can find heretical pastors in every religion.

Very true, but the idea of heresy is not nearly as strong in modern Methodism as it is in Catholicism.

I could tell you stories that would “wow” you much more, but perhaps that would not be charitable, and it would take us further off topic.

 

[rfournier103]

If there IS a claim of Methodist Apostolic Succession, would it not stand to reason they would claim a different Apostle than Peter as the starting point? If Peter was the first pope, how could they claim Peter was the first link in the chain going back to Jesus? Wouldn’t it be too close a tie to Catholicism for the Methodists’ comfort?

No. This is exactly why they claim. They claim they have apostolic succession through the Church of England, which was established by Rome.

I see. So they have a “claim” of Apostolic Succession historically, but do not believe that the seperation from Rome cuts the authoritative ties regarding validity in clergy, Holy Orders, etc…

Be that as it may, when Henry VIII thumbed his nose at ClementVII and the Catholic Church, did he not remove himself (and his church) from the Catholic Authority? Like when a British heir to the throne marries a Roman Catholic, they remove themselves from succession AS WELL AS THEIR OFFSPRING. In fact, their whole line is henceforth removed. Could the same not be said for church matters?

 

[jinc1019]

I see. So they have a “claim” of Apostolic Succession historically, but do not believe that the seperation from Rome cuts the authoritative ties regarding validity in clergy, Holy Orders, etc…

Be that as it may, when Henry VIII thumbed his nose at ClementVII and the Catholic Church, did he not remove himself (and his church) from the Catholic Authority? Like when a British heir to the throne marries a Roman Catholic, they remove themselves from succession AS WELL AS THEIR OFFSPRING. In fact, their whole line is henceforth removed. Could the same not be said for church matters?

Yes, that is the Catholic position. Although Holy Orders don’t have anything to do with that, which is why the Catholic Church does accept the Holy Orders of the Orthodox Church.

 

[jinc1019]

The first Methodist bishop, or so I’ve always been told by my Methodist family, was an American presbyter consecrated a bishop by fellow presbyters. John Wesley, a lifelong Anglican, strongly disagreed with the consecration and condemned this first Methodist bishop as a “false bishop”. I’m not aware of any subsequent conversions of Anglican bishops to Methodism, and have long assumed that Methodist bishops have no connection to Anglican bishops through episcopal consecration, but rather originate in these kinds of lines that arose among groups of Methodist presbyters.

Yes, but as Methodists point out, the Catholic Church accepted this form of succession in Africa after all of the bishops were killed off there without a chance to appoint new bishops. Also, this is how the earliest form of the church appointed bishops as well in some areas, and there are even passages in the New Testament letters that prove that.

Also, your story about Wesley is only partially right. History has shown Wesley understood the direction of his movement in America.

 

[Methos]

There is a story of dubious credibility that John Wesley was consecrated Bishop by Greek Orthodox Bishop Erasmus of Arcadia in London in 1763. This detailed in the link above. I wonder if Wesley were indeed so consecrated, whether he would have taken greater pains to preserve that line among those whom he later ordained. It is an odd story, but odd stories sometimes are true (witness some of the unbelievable scandals going around these days).

Apparently, that story has been around since the late 1800s. I found a biography on John Wesley, “The life and times of the Rev. John Wesley, founder of the Methodists, Volume 2” by Luke Tyerman, published in 1876 on Google Books that mentions it and what supposedly happened afterwards.

 

[jinc1019]

Apparently, that story has been around since the late 1800s. I found a biography on John Wesley, “The life and times of the Rev. John Wesley, founder of the Methodists, Volume 2” by Luke Tyerman, published in 1876 on Google Books that mentions it and what supposedly happened afterwards.

I have heard this as well…but there are strong arguments on both sides of the issue and we will never know because Wesley never wrote it down privately or publicly, and laws were in place in England that would have made what Wesley was trying to do illegal.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It is an issue though when that is the only thing they see and not our Lord’s words:

John 6:53 Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.

But that is not what you posted. You posted, making it seem as if the term anamnesis were being used to hide some heretical intent. But the error would properly be one of omission, not the use of the term anamnesis, because we all recognize in common that the Eucharist is an anamnesis.

 

[jinc1019]

But that is not what you posted. You posted, making it seem as if the term anamnesis were being used to hide some heretical intent. But the error would properly be one of omission, not the use of the term anamnesis, because we all recognize in common that the Eucharist is an anamnesis.

Absolutely correct!