What Protestant group was the first to *intentionally abandon Apostolic Succession?

[guanophore]

it’s not that the Reformers wanted to change anything…

What an odd thing to say! Of course they did! If “reform” was not needed, what would be the point?

His response was to take matters into his own hands.

King Henry, who was at one point our king, had a grudge and an offence against those who r

While I don’t disagree with your formulation, he was the first to replace the Apostolic succession with someone not in it, and later martyred those Catholic who did not agree.

His response was to take matters into his own hands.

Regardless of the motive, this is where the rebellion began. It was the pebble that loosened the avalanche of rebellion that became the Reformation.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

On a timeline, Luther is before Henry, but more to the point of the thread, I wonder if the Anabaptists were first to actually abandon AS.

And of course the Henry’s Church of England never abandoned the succession of Bishops.

 

[guanophore]

Goodness, where are you getting your information? None of this is accurate.

Perhaps you will enlighten me?

On a timeline, Luther is before Henry, but more to the point of the thread, I wonder if the Anabaptists were first to actually abandon AS.

Yes, I had the same thought. The Church was still strong enough (temporally) to swash them, but this was the last gasp. All efforts after than to use temporal power to restrain the faithful failed. There were some brief periods (Bloody Mary comes to mind) but never did the CC have the ability to squash “heretics” after that.

 

[LoyalViews]

Are you sure? If someone was convinced; indeed saw it as his duty to break off, the rebellion did happen and we cannot blame Henry for it. He wanted to see an orthodox Church. The CofE has shagged it.

 

[Augustinian]

There were some brief periods (Bloody Mary comes to mind) but never did the CC have the ability to squash “heretics” after that.

There were religious based wars, the 30 years War, the Spanish Armada, Catholic-protestant civil war actions in England. The hostility led the Turks to take advantage against a split Europe. Those were interesting times for sure.

 

[GKMotley]

The RCC says that Anglican orders are invalid, not because of who ordained whom, but because (per the conclusions of Apostolicae curae) at a certain point in time, use of a sacramentally invalid form (the Edwardine Ordinal), coupled with a supposedly sacramentally invalid intent, caused a break in the Anglican apostolic succession.

It’s complicated (as folks who know me know. And Henry’s drive for a decree of nullity is complicated, too). Anglicans, who do follow an episcopal polity, don’t agree with the judgement. RCs should, at the appropriate level of theological certainty.

 

[GKMotley]

The point in the break in Anglican apostolic succession, per the judgement of Apostolicae curae, is usually placed after Henry, in the consecration of Archbishop Parker, in 1559. And that judgement is based on intertwined points of sacramental form and sacramental intent, in episcopal consecration.

 

[GKMotley]

True. And the RCC doesn’t assert that he did.

 

[GKMotley]

Yep. And sufficient repetitions for necessary length.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

On a timeline, Luther is before Henry, but more to the point of the thread, I wonder if the Anabaptists were first to actually abandon AS.

And of course the Henry’s Church of England never abandoned the succession of Bishops.

And the Lutherans in Central Europe would say that it was the bishops who abandoned their duty to ordain.

 

[guanophore]

And the Lutherans in Central Europe would say that it was the bishops who abandoned their duty to ordain.

Well, they certainly abandoned many elements of the faith, or Luther would have had no reason to complain!

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Thank you for coming into the conversation GKMotley. You must be so tired of educating the folks here on the complexity of the English break with Rome. Perhaps you might reiterate on this thread, however, that Henry VIII did not want to start his own church because he wanted a divorce, that he was not in league with Luther and Calvin, and that the Reformation was not centered in England. The theological issues, such as they were during Henry’s reign, were little to do with what was happening in Europe.

 

[SnowRose]

I still find it funny that all Lutherans are treated the same when it comes to apostolic succession and the lower-c catholic church.
Funny as in roll my eyes at it, not as in giggly.

Iirc the exact method of the ordination was a major topic in the initial contacts between the British Anglicans and the Scandinavian Lutherans when talks began around a century ago, which ended with the Porvoo Communion. It’s similar to the situation with the Episcopalians-ELCA mentioned upthread.

So a break with apostolic tradition cannot be pinned on Luther as something he desired. It’s more that the continental Lutherans had to find a practical alternative to ordination (since blackmail didn’t work on them) and just struggle on.
It’s either later, or downstream from Zwingli, maybe?

 

[lilypadrees]

Easy. The Lutherans.

 

[poche]

I believe it started with Luther and Calvin themselves. It has to do with sacramental theology.

 

[JonNC]

Easy. The Lutherans.

Based on what?

 

[MichaelP3]

Exactly!

I get some very colourful thoughts everytime someone mentions "king Henry just wanted to get an annulments " as the reason. And he probably would have gotten one in this day and age. One of my favourite bands has this song. Last stand by Sabaton

This is known as the “Stand of the Swiss guard” where the Vatican was attacked by the Habsburgs. This happened right before the whole annulment and Henry Saga. The Holy See did not really recover after the sack yet. History and Politics are things people take for granted when voicing their opinions on here.

Same as Vatican 1 and Papal Infallibility. Rome was literally under siege and the Pope lost all temporal power. And then Papal Infallibility all of a sudden gets declared dogma?

Point is. History is always a bit more interesting when you check it out yourself and not just believe what you are taught.

Regards

 

[maddeyzgonzalez]

Well, I suppose it has to do with our Lords great Desire that we may all be “one”. It’s not just an idea, it was and is God’s desire, that we all be “one” big happy family.

 

[GKMotley]

You are very welcome. There’s a totally different subject that I tire of much more easily, but I soldier on. I do grumble, occasionally.

But to comment on this post, which has “divorce” in it:

Hank wanted both the winsome La Boleyn, and a legitimate male heir to help nail his dynasty to the throne. And had worked on the matter, particularly the latter, in various ways, before striking on the idea of a decree of nullity, to address both. Decrees of nullity were all the rage; his sister had gotten one shortly before Hank started his petition.He thought her causa was frivolous.

He was not in league with Luther, and was a rather noted opponent of him. Which didn’t stop him playing footsie with the Lutherans, for political points, later.

The reformation was Euro-centric. England had its own thing going.

The theological issues, wherever they raised their heads, were invariably intertwined with political issues. The political points were peculiar to the places, but it was the nascent nationalism that drove them, in England or across the water.

 

[GKMotley]

Yep. History is both complex and interesting. Digging deep is essential. Reading in the round is too. And books are the keystone.