What is wrong with Apostolic Succession? Isn’t it an important aspect of Christianity?

[GKC]

No, I’m not surprised. It’s proper to affirm, though, because it’s true. Anglicans have an invalid priesthood, and therefore how can the sacraments as given by Christ of the Eucharist or Reconciliation be valid in that church? Once you cut yourself off from the line of succession, you can’t restore it. Sorry for you guys. If you want seven valid and legitimate Sacraments, come on over to the RCC. The Light shining in the Catholic Church is the Light of the World.

This is the proper thing for a RC to affirm.

You will not be surprised that Anglicans have a different view of (most) of the matter.

GKC

 

[MDK]

This is the proper thing for a RC to affirm.

You will not be surprised that Anglicans have a different view of (most) of the matter.

GKC

Correct on both accounts. It is proper, because it’s true. I’m not surprised that Anglicans differ on most of the matter. I must add, that to their own peril, Anglicans differ with the authoritative Church built by Christ.

 

[GKC]

Correct on both accounts. It is proper, because it’s true. I’m not surprised that Anglicans differ on most of the matter. I must add, Anglicans differ with the authoritative Church built by Christ, at their own peril.

This is the proper thing for an RC to affirm.

You will not be surprised that Anglicans have a different view of the matter.

For extra credit, find the implied pun in the posts.

GKC

 

[MDK]

This is the proper thing for an RC to affirm.

You will not be surprised that Anglicans have a different view of the matter.

For extra credit, find the implied pun in the posts.

GKC

Matter… referring substantive change of the host into the Eucharist (or what is not changed in the Anglican attempts).

 

[GKC]

Matter… referring substantive change of the host into the Eucharist (or what is not changed in the Anglican attempts).

Correct as to the term. Now, how does this relate to the findings of Apostolicae Curae?

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Ok. I see your point, and I do not completely disagree. This does touch on the invisible and visible church. If the Church fell into error so profound that leaving it could be justified, how do you know that what you took is correct? How do you know that what you left was wrong?

That cuts both way. Staying could lead to the question “How do you know for sure that you were right to stay?”

But in large part I agree with you: if someone finds that a reasonable case can be made for staying and a reasonable case can be made for leaving, then staying makes the most sense.

BTW, I find it interesting how you say that Martin Luther left the Church, rather than Martin Luther was excommunicated by the Church.

 

[Peter_J]

For the record, I voted yes because I was feeling snarky. I know that the assumption of the OP is that “Apostolic Succession” = The Catholic Way of Maintaining Leadership, the short answer to a question about that particular assumption is: “well, no”.

But humor me.

The assumption that this succession is sacramental, institutional and must be documented seems more clearly related to medieval ideas of monarchical pedigree than to the New Testament record.

Many Catholics like to think that Protestants generally have this idea that the offices of leadership in the the church are sort of free ranging, just kind of floating around until God selects someone for the office to descend upon. I suppose there are churches like that but it certainly isn’t the norm.

In most Protestant churches an individual experiences a call to the ministry no different than that which might be experienced by a Catholic drawn to the priesthood or religious life. After a period of reflection and discernment a decision may be taken to enter seminary where the individual will receive training in a variety of disciplines related to the office he is working toward. He will get a graduate degree and then be placed on the rolls of people deemed acceptable for the office of pastor, he will then get a regular call from a congregation to go and be their pastor.

In other churches a young man may experience the call and attend a seminary with a view to returning to his home congregation as an assistant to the senior pastor in order to succeed him upon retirement.

In either case, the office did not descend upon the young man out of the blue. He was a member of the church, which has a succession all its own involving discipling, equipping, baptizing and reception into full membership in the Body of Christ. From that place he moved into leadership and in every case he received training and a call from the church in the persons of his teachers and pastors who, in their turn received the same before him.

Every pastor can name the man who personified his call and through whom he received the desire to be a pastor as well as all those who took part in his formation. They in turn can do the same for those who came before them. This can be surmised back to the apostles since there are not, nor have there ever been any Christians made who were not either made through the agency of the church or at some point enfolded by her.

I submit to you that this is the only kind of apostolic succession that matters and that it is irrelevant whether a list has been kept. I also dispute whether any particular charism for the office of pastor is in the gift of the institutional church beyond the regular call and the granting of privileges and duties pertaining to it. The ability to do the job is given by God to the individual in all the several gifts and talents He has granted that man.

Good post Steadfast. But what I’d like to point out is that your description of apostolic succession completely ignores the ancient principle “One city, one bishop”.

 

[ralphinal]

That cuts both way. Staying could lead to the question “How do you know for sure that you were right to stay?”

But in large part I agree with you: if someone finds that a reasonable case can be made for staying and a reasonable case can be made for leaving, then staying makes the most sense.

BTW, I find it interesting how you say that Martin Luther left the Church, rather than Martin Luther was excommunicated by the Church.

Did I quit my job or was I fired?

It is all in perspective. Luther was told what to do to avoid excommunication. He did not do it.

It is like the man who goes to hell. He was sent to hell by God, but he chose that path by his life.

 

[MDK]

Correct as to the term. Now, how does this relate to the findings of Apostolicae Curae?

GKC

We can both read and study Apostolicae Curae, and I will defend Leo XIII, and you will likely claim some kind of validity of priestly orders, despite what has happened.

Pope Leo XIII’s declared the invalidity of Anglican orders. Leo XIII said that the words of the Anglican ordination prayer did not signify definitely the order of the Catholic priesthood with its power to consecrate and offer the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice. Anglicans don’t have a valid priesthood, so can’t consecrate the host.

Some hope that future Anglican orders could be made valid, if the Anglicans straighten up their act. However, as of now, it’s a different matter for them. And this substance is what matters most.

 

[GKC]

We can both read and study Apostolicae Curae, and I will defend Leo XIII, and you will likely claim some kind of validity of priestly orders, despite what has happened.

Pope Leo XIII’s declared the invalidity of Anglican orders. Leo XIII said that the words of the Anglican ordination prayer did not signify definitely the order of the Catholic priesthood with its power to consecrate and offer the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice. Anglicans don’t have a valid priesthood, so can’t consecrate the host.

Some hope that future Anglican orders could be made valid, if the Anglicans straighten up their act. However, as of now, it’s a different matter for them. And this substance is what matters most.

Half correct. What else was declared invalid? And which must always be associated with the ‘form’ issue, since a number of Rites which the RCC recognises as conveying valiid orders also have that defect of form.

Good use of matter, again.

GKC

 

[John7]

This is not too far off topic but…how does Apostolic succession work…some sort of laying on of hands or something…or special ceremony? How does the new apostle get imbued with apostolic power from the previous one?..or does it not work that way…just wondering.

 

[MDK]

Half correct. What else was declared invalid? And which must always be associated with the ‘form’ issue, since a number of Rites which the RCC recognises as conveying valiid orders also have that defect of form.

Good use of matter, again.

GKC

My statement is completely correct in as much as I intended to discuss on this thread relating to valid or invalid Apostolic Succession, just maybe not what you wanted to see. Please understand that Catholics cannot show reverence to the elements of the Eucharist at an Anglican service without falling into formal idolatry. Anglicans lost Apostolic Succession. That’s how it relates to this thread. The effects of that are to me, most tragic for them. Anglicanism is more appropriately discussed as being formed with Protestant roots.

 

[ralphinal]

This is not too far off topic but…how does Apostolic succession work…some sort of laying on of hands or something…or special ceremony? How does the new apostle get imbued with apostolic power from the previous one?..or does it not work that way…just wondering.

Close. It is part of the sacrament of Holy Orders. When a new Bishop is ordained, he has three other bishops lay hands upon him to do so. It can be traced back all the way to the Apostles. Only one is needed, but three are used to be sure that at least one has valid succession.

 

[GKC]

My statement is completely correct in as much as I intended to discuss on this thread relating to valid or invalid Apostolic Succession, just maybe not what you wanted to see. Please understand that Catholics cannot show reverence to the elements of the Eucharist at an Anglican service without falling into formal idolatry. Anglicans lost Apostolic Succession. That’s how it relates to this thread. The effects of that are to me, most tragic for them.

If you want to explore the validity of the Eucharist in a more broad view, I suggest you start a new thread.

No, the answer is ‘intent’.

And sure, I know that, re: RCs and reverencing the Anglican Eucharist. I have had occasion to remind my RC friends of it. As to whether Anglicans lost Apostolic succession, that is, of course, the proper thing for a RC to affirm. Anglicans have a different view of the …subject. And of the logic behind it, and of matters subsequent to it.

Which is how it relates to this thread.

GKC

 

[MDK]

No, the answer is ‘intent’.

And sure, I know that. re: RCs and reverencing the Anglican Eucharist. I have had occasion to remind my RC friends of it. As to whether Anglicans lost Apostolic succession, that is, of course, the proper thing for a RC to affirm. Anglicans have a different view of the …subject. And of the logic behind it, and of matters subsequent to it.

Which is how it relates to this thread.

GKC

I do understand, but your presentation of “intent” is a little out of context. There’s more to it. Once you’ve lost Apostolic Succession, you can’t just claim you have it again. You’ve got to have valid Bishops to ordain other Bishops and priests. Once you have invalid Bishops trying to ordain, you have a break in the chain that will always be invalid. That’s how it relates to this thread.

 

[MDK]

No, the answer is ‘intent’.

And sure, I know that, re: RCs and reverencing the Anglican Eucharist. I have had occasion to remind my RC friends of it. As to whether Anglicans lost Apostolic succession, that is, of course, the proper thing for a RC to affirm. Anglicans have a different view of the …subject. And of the logic behind it, and of matters subsequent to it.

Which is how it relates to this thread.

GKC

The crux of the issue is that it comes down to authority as given by Christ. RCC has it, Anglican church doesn’t. Anglicans don’t believe that, but it that doesn’t change the reality and truth of the matter. If you don’t have authority as given by Christ, you can say anything you want, but it won’t be bound in Heaven as it is on Earth.

 

[GKC]

I do understand, but your presentation of “intent” is a little out of context. There’s more to it. Once you’ve lost Apostolic Succession, you can’t just claim you have it again. You’ve got to have valid Bishops to ordain other Bishops and priests. Once you have invalid Bishops trying to ordain, you have a break in the chain that will always be invalid. That’s how it relates to this thread.

Sure, you’re correct. But that is not the context of ‘intent’, as used in Apostolicae Curae, and which has to be paired with ‘form’ (the Edwardine Ordinal) for the whole picture.

Which is only a valid (here we go again) criticism if
*Apostlicae Curae *itself is valid. And there are arguments against it. And historical arguments as to what was really going on. But set that aside.That’s not what a RC should affirm, as we know.

What would you suppose would be the result of the infusion of vald/illict episcopal lines into the Anglican communion, over 60 years or so, from the Old Catholics of Utrecht, and the PNCC. You can swing for the fence on this. AFAIK, there is no offical ruling on it from the RCC.

GKC

 

[GKC]

The crux of the issue is that it comes down to authority as given by Christ. RCC has it, Anglican church doesn’t. Anglicans don’t believe that, but it that doesn’t change the reality and truth of the matter. If you don’t have authority as given by Christ, you can say anything you want, but it won’t be bound in Heaven as it is on Earth.

I don’t disagree with your last sentence.

GKC

 

[Steadfast]

Good post Steadfast. But what I’d like to point out is that your description of apostolic succession completely ignores the ancient principle “One city, one bishop”.

As ancient as that principle may be, it is not biblical. The bible does not distinguish between the offices of Bishop and Elder.

 

[Jimmy_B]

http://www.allsaintssanfran.org/Twelve Apostles/Peter/Peter, Christ Charge to Rubens.jpg

Matthew 16:16-19

"…you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church"

16 11 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Hebrews 8:7-13

First Covenant and New Covenant

7 3 For if that first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second one.
8 But he finds fault with them and says: 4 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers the day I took them by the hand to lead them forth from the land of Egypt; for they did not stand by my covenant and I ignored them, says the Lord.
10 But this is the covenant I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds and I will write them upon their hearts. I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
11 And they shall not teach, each one his fellow citizen and kinsman, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know me, from least to greatest.
12 For I will forgive their evildoing and remember their sins no more.”
13 5 When he speaks of a “new” covenant, he declares the first one obsolete. And what has become obsolete and has grown old is close to disappearing.

Acts 2:1-4

Pentecost

1 1 When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together.
2 And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, 2 and it filled the entire house in which they were.
3 Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, 3 which parted and came to rest on each one of them.
4 And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, 4 as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.

Miracles of Saint Peter - The First Catholic Pope.

·Peter Heals the Crippled Beggar (Acts 3:1-10)
·Death of Ananias and Sapphira(Act.5:1-10).
*·*All of them were healed(Act.5:14-15).
·Peter and John delivered from Jail by an angel(Act.5:17-21).
·The Paralytic Aeneas healed(Act.9:32-34)
·Resurrects Dorcas-Tabitha(Act.9:36-41).
·Visions of Peter and Cornelius(Act.10:9-23).
·Peter’s Second Miraculous Escape From Prison(Act.12:1-10).