Valid Apostolic Succession in other churches?

  • Thread starter Thread starter A_G
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

A_G

Guest
We Catholics believe that the Catholic Church has valid Apostolic Succession.

Now from a Catholic point of view, what other churches do we recognize as having valid Apostolic Succession?
 
A_G said:
We Catholics believe that the Catholic Church has valid Apostolic Succession.

Now from a Catholic point of view, what other churches do we recognize as having valid Apostolic Succession?
Click to expand...
Of course, the Eastern Orthodox do. I believe the Church also acknowledges apostolic succession for most (if not all) of the Oriental Orthodox (I’m not certain about Indian Orthodox, though).

From what I understand, the Polish National Catholic Church has valid orders (and thus apostolic succession). I know that we allow, with consent, them to communicate in Catholic Masses.

I also believe that some Old Catholic Churches have maintained valid apostolic succession, as well that is recognized by the Church (but you should check on that before committing).
Anglicans claim to have valid apostolic succession, but Pope Leo XIII slammed the door shut on that one.

I also believe that the Lutheran Churches of Sweden, Finland, and Norway assert apostolic succession. But, likewise, I do not believe that Rome acknowledges that, since the Lutheran Small Catechism does not acknowledge Holy Orders as a sacrament (and so since “intent” could not be held during an ordination, it would be invalid as a sacrament).
 
A_G said:
We Catholics believe that the Catholic Church has valid Apostolic Succession.

Now from a Catholic point of view, what other churches do we recognize as having valid Apostolic Succession?
Click to expand...
It has been shown many times before that Anglicans DO have Apostolic Succession. I realize that a papal decree has said otherwise, but it was never investigated to even a marginal degree.
 
Omar_Gatskill said:
It has been shown many times before that Anglicans DO have Apostolic Succession. I realize that a papal decree has said otherwise, but it was never investigated to even a marginal degree.
Click to expand...
An Episcopal priest once told me it is because they have Apostolic succession that a confirmed Catholic can be received into TEC without being re-confirmed. But I know as you said the Catholic faith decrees otherwise.
 
Omar_Gatskill said:
It has been shown many times before that Anglicans DO have Apostolic Succession. I realize that a papal decree has said otherwise, but it was never investigated to even a marginal degree.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that you look at paragraph 1-35 of the Bull, Apostolicae Curae, very carefully. Leo XIII outlines exactly the history behind the decree and the investigative steps that were taken in the formulation of that decree before making the pronouncement in paragraph 36:

Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.

The form and matter of the rite of ordination are clearly different (and thus, in the case of the Anglicans, void). That’s easy to research for yourself. This history can be looked up as well.
 
markomalley said:
I would suggest that you look at paragraph 1-35 of the Bull, Apostolicae Curae, very carefully. Leo XIII outlines exactly the history behind the decree and the investigative steps that were taken in the formulation of that decree before making the pronouncement in paragraph 36:

Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.

The form and matter of the rite of ordination are clearly different (and thus, in the case of the Anglicans, void). That’s easy to research for yourself. This history can be looked up as well.
Click to expand...
It says that We declare You invalid because we have the authority to. That’s all it says.
 
CMatt25 said:
An Episcopal priest once told me it is because they have Apostolic succession that a confirmed Catholic can be received into TEC without being re-confirmed. But I know as you said the Catholic faith decrees otherwise.
Click to expand...
Yes, Apostolicae Curae claims that Anglicans are not in AS, but I do not accept that.
 
But the Anglicans mixed lines with the valid Old Catholic lines since Apostolicae Curae I thought…?
 
markomalley said:
Read the document, not just the extract. Thanks.
Click to expand...
The story of Apostolicae Curae, a hobby of mine, is a long, complicated mixture of theology, politics and personalities. The best coverage of the history of what happened, between 1892 and1896, and why, is found in Fr. J. J. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID. I recommend it. It is revealing.

GKC
 
GKC said:
The Anglicans with the Utrecht OCs, beginning in 1932, with the PNCC beginning in 1946.

GKC
Click to expand...
You arrive just in the nick of time! 👍

Maybe you know (of course you know), what was the effect of Porvoo regarding AS? Did the Lutherans and Anglicans simply share their respective lines?

Jon
 
JonNC said:
You arrive just in the nick of time! 👍

Maybe you know (of course you know), what was the effect of Porvoo regarding AS? Did the Lutherans and Anglicans simply share their respective lines?

Jon
Click to expand...
Porvoo is not in my historical target area. AFAIK, Porvoo established full inter-communion of all signatory Churches, recognized all as possessing Apostolic Succession, and provided for joint consecration and ordination, as performed by each respective Church. What the precise meaning of the last might be, I don’t know.

Further deponent sayeth not.

GKC
 
With all due respect to those posting here, your religious affiliations should be fairly disclosed (even if none). Charitable exchange is sometimes best rendered when all parties can anticipate the sensitivities of other parties in the dialogue, forcing one to “think twice” before hitting “Submit Reply”.

That said, it’s not certain from the sundry posts here if those seemingly defending valid apostolic succession of non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Churches are doing so based on facts, as opposed to simply discrediting the determinations of other Churches.

Further, irrespective of how the Catholic Church may have arrived at that determination (and making no judgement on that whatsoever), it should be acknowledged that there are now a multitude of factors that would now (in the present) come between Rome and other churches seeking reconciliation and stronger unity. To be fair and charitable, we’ll refer to them as differences in faith tradition (e.g. composition of the clergy, sacramental practice, etc.), but these do tend to have doctrinal considerations attached and would likely be primary issues in discussing any potential reversal or official change in the Catholic Church’s determination.

We cannot change the past, but we can alter the future. For that reason, it is usually preferable to focus on current conditions and relations as opposed to past history, if one truly desires to change the status quo.

And we Christians are all called to do so, by none other than our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me. [John 17:20-21]
Click to expand...
 
ByzCathCantor said:
With all due respect to those posting here, your religious affiliations should be fairly disclosed (even if none). Charitable exchange is sometimes best rendered when all parties can anticipate the sensitivities of other parties in the dialogue, forcing one to “think twice” before hitting “Submit Reply”.

That said, it’s not certain from the sundry posts here if those seemingly defending valid apostolic succession of non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Churches are doing so based on facts, as opposed to simply discrediting the determinations of other Churches.

Further, irrespective of how the Catholic Church may have arrived at that determination (and making no judgement on that whatsoever), it should be acknowledged that there are now a multitude of factors that would now (in the present) come between Rome and other churches seeking reconciliation and stronger unity. To be fair and charitable, we’ll refer to them as differences in faith tradition (e.g. composition of the clergy, sacramental practice, etc.), but these do tend to have doctrinal considerations attached and would likely be primary issues in discussing any potential reversal or official change in the Catholic Church’s determination.

We cannot change the past, but we can alter the future. For that reason, it is usually preferable to focus on current relations as opposed to past history, if one truly desires to change the status quo.

And we Christians are all called to do so, by none other that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Generally, I agree. Though I am very fond of history, in a number of areas. It shows.

And generally, after so many years and posts here, I assume my affiliation is known. To many, anyway.

My knowledge of the story of of Apostolicae Curae is based on over 10 years of studying and reading on it, and around 20 books, in my possession. As I often say, the subject is one which all RCs should affirm, with the degree of theological certainty appropriate, what the RCC requires them to affirm.

Others not in such a relationship to the *Magisterium * may hold other opinions.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus
 
GKC said:
And generally, after so many years and posts here, I assume my affiliation is known. To many, anyway.
Click to expand...
Thank you, friend! I’m relatively new to this forum, but I’m sure I’ll get to know the “regulars” a little better as time goes on.

BTW - I did appreciate your posts very much, and your referenced scholarship. I respect your efforts to appreciate the history of this subject more completely.

I’m just a practical guy - I’d like to see us all get along better in the present!

Peace, health and happiness in the New Year and for many more to come!
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Thank you, friend! I’m relatively new to this forum, but I’m sure I’ll get to know the “regulars” a little better as time goes on.

BTW - I did appreciate your posts very much, and your referenced scholarship. I respect your efforts to appreciate the history of this subject more completely.

I’m just a practical guy - I’d like to see us all get along better in the present!

Peace, health and happiness in the New Year and for many more to come!
Click to expand...
Thank you for the comments. I also like folks to get along. But I also know where there is wiggle room, and where there is not, and I do respect it.

And many years, to you, likewise.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top