Methodist Apostolic Succession

[GKC]

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.

Or, the OCs of Utrecht (though this is changing) or the PNCC, inter alia..

GKC

 

[runningdude]

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.

No such evidence exists.

 

[jinc1019]

No such evidence exists.

Have you ever read “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic: The Early Church Was the Catholic Church” (amazon.com/One-Holy-Catholic-Apostolic-Church/dp/0898708028)??) It’s a very good pro-Catholic book, but even in here it suggests that many early churches did start by electing bishops from the elders. Also, please note 1 Timothy 4:14: bible.cc/1_timothy/4-14.htm

 

[pablope]

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.

Well…if it is illegal…and borne of disobedience…then it is a sin to commit it…and what does sin do? Does it not offend God and causes a separation from God’s grace?

This is what the Bible says of disobedience to God’s authority:

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

Just because they made or committed something illegal does not make it right.

 

[jinc1019]

Well…if it is illegal…and borne of disobedience…then it is a sin to commit it…and what does sin do? Does it not offend God and causes a separation from God’s grace?

This is what the Bible says of disobedience to God’s authority:

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

Just because they made or committed something illegal does not make it right.

I don’t think you are following what I was saying properly, with all due respect. What I was saying was, the reason Wesley may have chosen not to record the event occurring was not because it didn’t happen, but because it was against English law established by the king to help the Americans.

 

[Jacob50]

I have heard multiple theories about apostolic succession in the Methodist tradition and would like to know what all of you think of it. From what I understand, they elect bishops from the priesthood and claim that it is based on an ancient decision from Alexandria. Is that correct? Is there any truth to it?

None. I think its all false. Methodism came from Anglicanism. Anglicans don’t have valid orders. Pope Leo XIII stated in his 1896 bull Apostolicae Curae that the Catholic Church believes specifically that the Anglican Church’s consecrations are “absolutely null and utterly void” because of changes made to the rite of consecration under Edward VI, thus denying that Anglicans participate in the apostolic succession. This is why Anglican clergy are ordained as Catholic priests upon entry into the Catholic Church.

With this in mind, Methodists have no apostolic succession.

 

[GKC]

None. I think its all false. Methodism came from Anglicanism. Anglicans don’t have valid orders. Pope Leo XIII stated in his 1896 bull Apostolicae Curae that the Catholic Church believes specifically that the Anglican Church’s consecrations are “absolutely null and utterly void” because of changes made to the rite of consecration under Edward VI, thus denying that Anglicans participate in the apostolic succession. This is why Anglican clergy are ordained as Catholic priests upon entry into the Catholic Church.

With this in mind, Methodists have no apostolic succession.

With respect to Apostolicae Curae, one must also remember intent.

Often forgotten.

GKC

 

[jinc1019]

With respect to Apostolicae Curae, one must also remember intent.

Often forgotten.

GKC

Agreed!

 

[jinc1019]

None. I think its all false. Methodism came from Anglicanism. Anglicans don’t have valid orders. Pope Leo XIII stated in his 1896 bull Apostolicae Curae that the Catholic Church believes specifically that the Anglican Church’s consecrations are “absolutely null and utterly void” because of changes made to the rite of consecration under Edward VI, thus denying that Anglicans participate in the apostolic succession. This is why Anglican clergy are ordained as Catholic priests upon entry into the Catholic Church.

With this in mind, Methodists have no apostolic succession.

It’s more complicated than that.

 

[GKC]

It’s more complicated than that.

History usually is. It’s full of people and stuff.

GKC

 

[Zooey]

I’m almost certain that this is not correct. I have two theological degrees from Duke Divinity School, which is affiliated with the United Methodist Church, and I have never heard this.

Wesley, first of all, did not intend to start a different church, and indeed, he remained a priest of the Church of England until he died. However, he saw the inevitability of the Methodist movement in America as a separate Church, and, reluctantly, began ordaining ministers for the Methodists in America. He did this after having convinced himself that the offices of bishop and presbyter are the same office, sacramentally.

Just dropping in to point out that, in fact, the current list of saints in the Church of England includes the entry: “John Wesley & Charles Wesley: priests”. So the C of E still regards both of them as members in good standing, as priests, & indeed, as saints of the church.

 

[jinc1019]

Just dropping in to point out that, in fact, the current list of saints in the Church of England includes the entry: “John Wesley & Charles Wesley: priests”. So the C of E still regards both of them as members in good standing, as priests, & indeed, as saints of the church.

Great point…but unfortunately, doesn’t indicate whether the Methodists actually have apostolic succession. I think that if the Anglican Church was said to have it by Catholics, many here would argue that Methodists do have it. A big reason they argue against it seems to be because the Catholic Church rejects apostolic succession in the Church of England.

 

[jinc1019]

I would like to know if we pretended for just a minute that the Catholic Church announced this morning that the Church of England has had valid Holy Orders since the time before Wesley, would that change anyone’s view on apostolic succession in the Methodist Church? In other words, do you think the way Methodists treat bishops could be historically valid? St. Jerome, did seem to think so.

 

[Zooey]

Great point…but unfortunately, doesn’t indicate whether the Methodists actually have apostolic succession. I think that if the Anglican Church was said to have it by Catholics, many here would argue that Methodists do have it. A big reason they argue against it seems to be because the Catholic Church rejects apostolic succession in the Church of England.

True. But it does tell us that the C of E is not opposed to the Wesleys & their teachings, as one might think if looking only at the attitudes of their own day.

 

[runningdude]

Have you ever read “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic: The Early Church Was the Catholic Church” (amazon.com/One-Holy-Catholic-Apostolic-Church/dp/0898708028)??) It’s a very good pro-Catholic book, but even in here it suggests that many early churches did start by electing bishops from the elders. Also, please note 1 Timothy 4:14: bible.cc/1_timothy/4-14.htm

That the bishops were elected I don’t dispute. That they were consecrated by the election, and not by another bishop, is unsubstantiated.

 

[jinc1019]

That the bishops were elected I don’t dispute. That they were consecrated by the election, and not by another bishop, is unsubstantiated.

That is a very good point.

 

[jinc1019]

This is a very interesting letter written by St. Jerome, I believe in the 4th century. It explains that bishops and presbyters were one group, not multiple.

ww.newadvent.org/fathers/3001146.htm

 

[runningdude]

This is a very interesting letter written by St. Jerome, I believe in the 4th century. It explains that bishops and presbyters were one group, not multiple.

ww.newadvent.org/fathers/3001146.htm

Saint Jerome is speaking of the graces to celebrate the Eucharist common to priests and bishops. They are of the same brotherhood, though only the bishop posses the fulness of the priesthood, including the graces to perform ordination:
Saint Jerome:

“For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter?”

Letter 146, Paragraph 1 (approx 6 lines from bottom)

 

[jinc1019]

Saint Jerome is speaking of the graces to celebrate the Eucharist common to priests and bishops. They are of the same brotherhood, though only the bishop posses the fulness of the priesthood, including the graces to perform ordination:

I am sorry but an honest and clear reading of that letter from St. Jerome is clear…It doesn’t mean St. Jerome is wrong, but he clearly believes that they are one order.

 

[jinc1019]

Read the first line!
“I am told that some one has been mad enough to put deacons before presbyters, that is, before bishops.” He says it right there.

And more clearly, here: “Of the names presbyter and bishop the first denotes age, the second rank. In writing both to Titus and to Timothy the apostle speaks of the ordination of bishops and of deacons, but says not a word of the ordination of presbyters; for the fact is that the word bishops includes presbyters also.”