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

[catholic1seeks]

Right, right. I know Catholics don’t accept Anglican or Lutheran orders, for example. But both those groups tend to at least acknowledge some sense of episcopal governance and apostolic succession.

So which Protestant group/theology was the first to intentionally abandon these historic Christian notions? Was it the Presbyterians or Congregationalists, for example? Calvin himself?

Why is this question important? Besides some of the first Protestant groups, all other ANCIENT and APOSTOLIC churches are based in the notions of episcopal (bishop-led) church governance, rooted in Apostolic Succession. Think Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox like Copts, Assyrian Church, Catholic Church whether Roman, Syriac, or other independent traditions that later entered into communion with it.

 

[catholic1seeks]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

See that timeline there? Most colors readily continue the ancient Christian understanding of ecclessiology – more or less, insofar as Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, Anglicans, and Lutheran bodies maintain bishops and some notion of Apostolic Succession.

 

[ltwin]

Right, right. I know Catholics don’t accept Anglican or Lutheran orders, for example. But both those groups tend to at least acknowledge some sense of episcopal governance and apostolic succession.

Actually, early Lutherans in Germany abandoned the episcopal office. They replaced it with ecclesiastical superintendents. This was different in Lutheran Scandinavian, where the office of bishop was retained.

Today, Lutheran denominations such as the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod continue to operate without bishops.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Was it Luther himself who abandoned the idea? And also, when did bishops come back into Lutheranism? I thought there were Lutheran bishops in America.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Also, I guess merely having the “term” bishop is not enough. Granted, I don’t know much about Protestant history concerning this question — partly why I’m asking.

I guess if I could refine it, I would say at least the ancient Christian traditions have maintained essentially the same ecclesiology in terms of Holy Orders – single bishop (e.g., patriarch) with presbyter-priests and deacons.

 

[ltwin]

I thought there were Lutheran bishops in America.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has bishops, but even the ELCA did not claim to have bishops in Apostolic Succession until 1999/2000. This is when it agreed to full communion with the Episcopal Church in the US. As part of this agreement, the Episcopalians demanded the ELCA began using Episcopal bishops to help consecrate ELCA bishops so as to provide the Lutheran episcopate with actual apostolic succession (at least from the Anglican viewpoint).

 

[PJH_74]

Was it Luther himself who abandoned the idea? And also, when did bishops come back into Lutheranism? I thought there were Lutheran bishops in America.

Personally I don’t believe Luther would have personally rejected it, frankly it’s some the Catholic Church cares about more. Yes there are Lutheran Bishops in the Unite States, there are in the ELCA branch. A lot of it has to do with where the roots of various Lutheran churches are with respect to the region of origin.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Okay soooo… Lutherans were the first to reject bishops, then?

That’s worse than I thought! How can we have common ground and hope for reunion if we don’t even agree on ecclesiology, in the first place!

 

[PJH_74]

How can we have common ground and hope for reunion if we don’t even agree on ecclesiology, in the first place!

Common ground is not about agreeing with everything. Apostolic Succession is not central to one’s salvation.

As far as US ELCA Bishops, they are still called to Word and Sacrament. In other word they are still considered a Pastor who is a leader among peers. His or her job is mainly to administer the Synod (essentially a diocese) in the context of the ELCA.

 

[ltwin]

Was it Luther himself who abandoned the idea?

Okay soooo… Lutherans were the first to reject bishops, then?

Luther didn’t reject bishops. He just saw bishops as being essentially the same thing as priests but with a particular pastoral ministry to pastors. As explained in Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development by Bernhard Lohse:

Luther’s view of the office of bishop [was that] it merely represented a particular instance of the ministerial office. . . .

. . . The bishop’s task are in essence the same as those of the pastor. . . . What is special about the office is merely that the bishop should also care for pastors. In consequence, any power of jurisdiction peculiar to the bishop is nonexistant. . . . .

In view of the Catholic bishops’ resistance to reform, the evangelical [Lutheran] prince in large measure took over the vacant episcopal see, and in the church tailored to the Reformation functioned as summus episcopus. Luther regarded this as a makeshift, for which he coined the term “emergency bishop” (Notbischof).

Luther did attempt to install Lutheran bishops in the sees of Naumburg and Merseberg but failed. Later, as I said, German Lutheran churches would develop the office of superintendent instead, which essentially functioned as bishops; however, these were overseen by the state. See Wikpedia’s article on Superintendent (ecclesiastical). The term “superintendent” is still a translation of “episcopus” (which means “overseer” or “supervisor”), but it had the advantage of avoiding any Catholic connotations that had accrued to the word “bishop”.

And just to clarify, some Protestant denominations reject Apostolic Succession. However, all Protestants accept the office of bishop. Even Baptists recognize that there is a biblical office of bishops. They simply identify it with the office of pastor. Likewise, Presbyterians have bishops, they just call them elders/presbyters.

 

[JonNC]

catholic1seeks:

Right, right. I know Catholics don’t accept Anglican or Lutheran orders, for example. But both those groups tend to at least acknowledge some sense of episcopal governance and apostolic succession.

Actually, early Lutherans in Germany abandoned the episcopal office. They replaced it with ecclesiastical superintendents. This was different in Lutheran Scandinavian, where the office of bishop was retained.

Today, Lutheran denominations such as the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod continue to operate without bishops.

However, this was intended as an exception to the accepted episcopal practice because the bishops refused to ordain. The Evangelical Catholics pointed to the early Church, that the office of bishop and presbyter were essentially the same, and the Cistercian abbots who practiced presbyter ordination in the 1400’s.

 

[MichaelP3]

So which Protestant group/theology was the first to intentionally abandon these historic Christian notions? Was it the Presbyterians or Congregationalists, for example? Calvin himself?

This is greatly assuming it was “a thing” in the first place.

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

 

[margaret42]

This makes me think-why couldn’t people just accept the teachings of the church back then, as they are expected to now. You wouldn’t have all this argument saying, “my church is better than your church”?

 

[ComplineSanFran]

This makes me think-why couldn’t people just accept the teachings of the church back then, as they are expected to now. You wouldn’t have all this argument saying, “my church is better than your church”?

It has been Christianity’s history and nature to disagree. Think about it - from the Apostles onward, there has been dissent over authority and theology. There has never been a sense of ‘one happy family.’ I wonder where people get the idea that it ever existed.

 

[guanophore]

I know Catholics don’t accept Anglican or Lutheran orders, for example.

No. Catholics only accept valid Catholic Holy Orders. The persons receiving them may have been members of other ecclesial communities, but their orders are only valid if they were ordained by valid Bishops who are members of the Apostolic Succession.

So which Protestant group/theology was the first to intentionally abandon these historic Christian notions? Was it the Presbyterians or Congregationalists, for example? Calvin himself?

Henry VIII was the first, replacing the successor of Peter for himself.
Luther was next, denying the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Yes, Calvin himself, and Zwingli.

 

[guanophore]

That’s worse than I thought! How can we have common ground and hope for reunion if we don’t even agree on ecclesiology, in the first place!

You hit that nail on the head! But the problem with Lutheranism is not so much with the Bishops as with the successor of Peter.

" Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents. For Paul, in describing Antichrist to the Thessalonians, calls him 2 Thess. 2:3-4: an adversary of Christ, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God." Book of Concord.

 

[LoyalViews]

I agree with what you said, but I would not be quite sure about Henry VIII. He was highly orthodox, and his journals indicate that his break with Rome was purely emotional and due to the fact that he couldn’t bring a male successor to the throne.

Henry wanted a man, and his one and only legitimate wife, poor Katherine, couldn’t give that to him. So he proclaimed himself the head of the Church in England and always promoted Catholic doctrine. He never forgot the faith he was raised in. My personal opinion is that he was mentally ill. He hated Luther, and would most likely detest Calvin and Knox. 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 remained to Rome. But he never forgot God. He was convinced all this happened by God’s will. There was great expectation upon him, and he believed in the divine right of kings. He was a Catholic, but he also believed in his own pride. Perhaps he didn’t read the bible closer.

For this reason I have trouble with accepting the fact that Anglican orders are invalid. I’ve attended so many ordinations in the Anglican tradition and they pledge allegiance to the Catholic Church. Two of them were Anglo-Papalists, and our archdiocesan bishop attended each and every one of them and the words they spoke were from “Peter onwards” and I heard a word about apostolic succession.

Perhaps we have this schism in the west because the English Church has been stubborn. Just by saying we will “ordain” women, it has separated us and it has. But the men, we can’t say they’re not real priests supposed they’re ordained my another man bishop. All of us have the same search for God if that’s why we are ordained. The Lutherans on the other hand, pray for them…

 

[Augustinian]

This is greatly assuming it was “a thing” in the first place.

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

A lot of the Reformation had to do with politics- much like the east-west schism 500 years before that.

If you look at the Henry VIII annulment case- whichever way it went, either England or Spain was not going to be happy with it. And both countries were major maritime powers.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Henry VIII was the first, replacing the successor of Peter for himself.
Luther was next, denying the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Yes, Calvin himself, and Zwingli.

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

 

[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.