Non-Catholic Christians view on apostolic succession?

[commenter]

It more specifically means just “presbyter”, as “priest” is any ordained minister that shares in Christ’s priesthood, and can thus confect the Eucharist. This is both presbyters and bishops. It’s just unfortunate that in English, “priest” is the common word used to denote someone who is technically speaking more appropriately called “presbyter”.

I would also be cautious of the term “abbot”, especially what it meant at that time. It was a kind of prelate, I believe installed by a bishop with the intent of making him kind of an extremely localized prelate - just within this monastary, or within a 10 mile radius.

 

[Picky_Picky]

pablope;13772569:

Now, I do not claim in any way to be an expert on Catholic teaching, and I welcome correction if I understand this incorrectly, but the presbyterate means presbyter, or priest.

Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

pg. 459
(Highlighting is mine)

www.essan.org/…/Fundamentals%20Of%20Catholic%20Dogma.pdf

Jon

St Osyth, (the abbot of the priory established on the site of the Essex nunnery she founded was the chap given the right to ordain), was one of those wonderful Anglo Saxon woman saints. Her special quality was being able to pick up her head and walk off with it after her martyrdom. Whether she did or not, she is an example of that class of Anglo Saxon princesses who weren’t prepared to be pushed around by their menfolk. Admirable person.

 

[GKC]

JonNC;13774607:

St Osyth, (the abbot of the priory established on the site of the Essex nunnery she founded was the chap given the right to ordain), was one of those wonderful Anglo Saxon woman saints. Her special quality was being able to pick up her head and walk off with it after her martyrdom. Whether she did or not, she is an example of that class of Anglo Saxon princesses who weren’t prepared to be pushed around by their menfolk. Admirable person.

Cephalophores do have that special quality, as is said. I had no idea this lady was one.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Do you think it is/was a legitimate Christian practice?

Of course.

If so, is it something that Jesus instructed or something the apostles implemented with or w/o guidance of the Holy Spirit after His ascension?

I have no idea if Our Lord explicitly authorized Apostolic Succession or if it came about by necessity but I believe it is legitimate either way.

Do you think that since Judas was such a extraordinary case

He was chosen by Our Lord. He didn’t have to make the choices that he did. The fact that he did make those choices does not invalidate his apostleship.

Or do you think it was necessary only until the reformation and the advent of the printing press?

I don’t know about all non-Orthodox and non-Anglican Protestants but at the very least the Southern Baptists have a sort of bizarre form of succession. By no means is it apostolic but they do have something.

When conservative SB’s retook their denomination back in the 80’s, they elected a Southern Baptist Convention president named Adrian Rogers. Rogers was a conservative Baptist’s conservative Baptist. He made several staff appointments and these appointees made appointments of their own and so on until they held a monopoly on the convention.

Every single office holder in the Southern Baptist Convention can trace his “lineage” back to Adrian Rogers either directly or indirectly.

The SB’s don’t call this “succession” but that’s basically what it is. It’s a fallen, flawed, imperfect and absolutely fallible tradition of men they’ve created out of whole cloth. But they now have their own form of succession. They’ll deny it but it’s true. Easily verified too.

The fact is there must be a human leadership of some kind to ensure doctrinal fidelity. We Catholics believe ours comes from an unbroken line that goes straight back to Our Lord Himself. And that too is easily verified.

In writing, the Southern Baptists say they believe Sacred Scripture alone should be the sole rule. In actual practice though, they agree with us that succession (at least of some kind) is non-negotiable.

I’m not sure if other Protestants have similar non-apostolic forms of succession but the Southern Baptist Convention most assuredly does… even though they’ll probably deny they even have it.

Most rank-and-file Protestants probably don’t pay much attention to apostolic succession. The few who have considered it likely assume (as I once did) that it’s possible for an entire institution to be wrong so it is too risky to place one’s trust in fallible men rather than God’s Word.

For these types, reading the Church Fathers is the ultimate antidote, the perfect inoculation against ignorance as to historical practices of the Church that go back to the very earliest days of Christianity.

 

[PJM]

Greetings.

Curious as to what the overall sentiment on apostolic succession is? I know the Orthodox and Anglicans are in total agreement.

I have had some interesting discussions with friends and family(non-Catholics) about this topic.

Do you think it is/was a legitimate Christian practice?

If so, is it something that Jesus instructed or something the apostles implemented with or w/o guidance of the Holy Spirit after His ascension?

Do you think that since Judas was such a extraordinary case, and really a phony apostle, that St Matthias was the exception and not the norm??

Or do you think it was necessary only until the reformation and the advent of the printing press?

Thanks

ACTUALLY IT VERY BIBLICAL AND DEMANDED BY JESUS HIMSELF

**Mt 10:1-8 **
1] And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. [2] **And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, **[3] James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, [4] Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. [5] These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not.[6] But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [7] And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. [8] Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give.

And then Jesus CHANGES the Mandate:

Mt 28: 19-20
[19] Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world" AMEN!

So from the earlier Mandate to go ONLY to the “house of Israel”. to NOW “YOU GO! TO THE ENTIRE WORLD” Ect.

WHICH MAKES ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY SUCCESSION IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE MISSION GIVEN DIRECTLY AND EXCLUSIVELY TO HIS CC.

 

[pablope]

Yes. Lutherans agree. Ott, page 459 shows, however, that it was priests who were permitted to ordain. And those ordinations were valid.

Jon

Hi, Jon…your link does not work though.

Again…from the info you provided…the operative word being “permitted”…lust take it
that a simple priest is an extraordinary dispenser of the Orders of Diaconate
and Presbyterate, just as he is an extraordinary dispenser of Confirmation.
In this latter view, the requisite power ofconsecration is contained in the priestly
power of consecration as U potestas ligata." For the valid exercise of it a special exercise of the Papal power is, by Divine or Church ordinance, necessary.

Ott’s info has some differences with the link I provided earlier:

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin1.htm#02

1. Two Bulls Authorizing Simple Priests To Confer The Priesthood
2. The most recent Bull among these documents, that of Innocent VIII of g April 1489, had been known for a long time past. In it the Pope grants to the Abbot of Citeaux (for the whole Cistercian Order) and to the Abbots of La Ferte, Pontigny, Clairvaux and Merimont (for their respective abbeys) and to the successors of all these, the power of themselves conferring the subdiaconate and diaconate on their monks. This Bull, which cannot today be located in the pontifical archives, but whose authenticity seems beyond doubt, was published as from 1491. It alone was enough to decide certain theologians that the diaconate should be included in the Orders which a priest can confer by means of a delegation from the Sovereign Pontiff.

In 1924 was published the Bull, hitherto unknown, by which Boniface IX (1 Feb. 1400) authorised the Augustinian Abbot of St. Osyth, in Essex, and his successors, to raise his subjects not only to the subdiaconate and the diaconate but even to the priesthood. It is true that on the 6th February 1403 the Pope revoked this Bull, but this was purely to fall in with the wishes of the Bishop of London, who maintained that there had been an infringement of his right of patronage over the abbey.[264]

Finally, in 1943 there was published a Bull of Martin V (16 Nov. 1427) conceding to the Cistercian Abbot of Altezelle in the diocese of Meissen, over a period of five years, the power of conferring on all his monks, without the previous authorization of the local bishop, all Orders including Major Orders, “omnes etiam sacros ordines.”[265]

“To sum up: Sovereign Pontiffs have conceded this privilege to simple priests. Thus they can so concede it. And thus a simple priest can, given a delegation from the Sovereign Pontiff, be the minister of the Orders of the diaconate and the priesthood.”

 

[pablope]

I would also be cautious of the term “abbot”, especially what it meant at that time. It was a kind of prelate, I believe installed by a bishop with the intent of making him kind of an extremely localized prelate - just within this monastary, or within a 10 mile radius.

newadvent.org/cathen/01015c.htm

An Abbot canonically elected and confirmed, and exercising the duties of his office, is by the law of the Church styled a Regular Abbot. Regular Abbots are prelates in the full sense of the word, and their dignity is of three grades.

An Abbot who presides only over such persons, ecclesiastical and lay, as are attached to his monastery, belongs to the lowest grade, and his jurisdiction carries with it what is called the simple passive exemption (exemptio passiva) from the authority of the diocesan bishop.

If an Abbot’s jurisdiction extends beyond the limits of his abbey, over the inhabitants — clergy and laity — of a certain district or territory which forms an integral part of a bishop’s diocese, he belongs to the middle grade (praelatus quasi nullius dioecesis) and his exemption is termed active (exemptio activa).

And when an Abbot has jurisdiction over the clergy and laity of a district or territory (comprising one or several cities and places) which forms no part whatever of any diocese, his abbey is styled vere nullius dioecesis (of no diocese) and, excepting a few rights only, for the exercise of which the ordo episcopalis is required, his authority is in all things equal to that of a bishop. This is the third and highest grade of the dignity.

 

[pablope]

St Osyth, (the abbot of the priory established on the site of the Essex nunnery she founded was the chap given the right to ordain), was one of those wonderful Anglo Saxon woman saints. Her special quality was being able to pick up her head and walk off with it after her martyrdom. Whether she did or not, she is an example of that class of Anglo Saxon princesses who weren’t prepared to be pushed around by their menfolk. Admirable person.

The monastery was named after St Osyth, but was not the one given permission to ordain herself.

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=4926

Osgyth (or Osyth) (died 700 AD[1]) was an English saint. She is primarily commemorated in the village of Saint Osyth, Essex, near Colchester. Alternative spellings of her name include Sythe, Othith and Ositha

The papal bull allowing to ordain was written in 1400:

In 1924 was published the Bull, hitherto unknown, by which Boniface IX (1 Feb. 1400) authorised the Augustinian Abbot of St. Osyth, in Essex, and his successors, to raise his subjects not only to the subdiaconate and the diaconate but even to the priesthood. It is true that on the 6th February 1403 the Pope revoked this Bull, but this was purely to fall in with the wishes of the Bishop of London, who maintained that there had been an infringement of his right of patronage over the abbey.[264]

 

[Picky_Picky]

The monastery was named after St Osyth, but was not the one given permission to ordain herself.

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=4926

Osgyth (or Osyth) (died 700 AD[1]) was an English saint. She is primarily commemorated in the village of Saint Osyth, Essex, near Colchester. Alternative spellings of her name include Sythe, Othith and Ositha

The papal bull allowing to ordain was written in 1400:

In 1924 was published the Bull, hitherto unknown, by which Boniface IX (1 Feb. 1400) authorised the Augustinian Abbot of St. Osyth, in Essex, and his successors, to raise his subjects not only to the subdiaconate and the diaconate but even to the priesthood. It is true that on the 6th February 1403 the Pope revoked this Bull, but this was purely to fall in with the wishes of the Bishop of London, who maintained that there had been an infringement of his right of patronage over the abbey.[264]

No, indeed, St Osyth was not the one given the power of ordination (now that would be a story!). As I said, it is believed that St Osyth’s nunnery preceded the priory whose abbot was so authorised. The following is a knowledgeable report (we need not be so mean-spirited as to believe, with the author, that St Osyth’s nunnery was but a legend):

british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol2/pp157-162

 

[JonNC]

Hi, Jon…your link does not work though.

Again…from the info you provided…the operative word being “permitted”…lust take it
that a simple priest is an extraordinary dispenser of the Orders of Diaconate
and Presbyterate, just as he is an extraordinary dispenser of Confirmation.
In this latter view, the requisite power ofconsecration is contained in the priestly
power of consecration as U potestas ligata." For the valid exercise of it a special exercise of the Papal power is, by Divine or Church ordinance, necessary.

Ott’s info has some differences with the link I provided earlier:

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin1.htm#02

Thank you for this. I think we agree that, 1) presbyter ordination did in fact take place, and that, in the Catholic view, it must have papal permission.
Lutherans, OTOH, do not think that papal permission is necessary, since we are not in communion with the pope.

Jon
Jon