When is Apostolic Succession Valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Randy_Carson

Guest
When is Apostolic Succession Valid?
May 11, 2017 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2017/05/apostolic-succession-valid.html

Many Anglicans–especially members of the breakaway groups–seem to think that apostolic orders are like pedigrees for dogs: if you have the paperwork to prove it your doggie is a show dog.

But apostolic succession is more than the paperwork.

Anglicans like to point to the fact that Church of England bishops have had their orders validated by being ordained by bishops from the Old Catholic Church. While their paperwork may all be in order, there is still an awful lot that is not in order.

For apostolic succession to be fully active and fully valid the person ordained needs to be in a living, active and full communion with the successor of Peter. Peter was the head of the apostles at the beginning and he still is today. Imagine what it would have been like if St Timothy, who was ordained by St Paul, had said, “I have the apostolic succession, but I am of the Pauline Church, not the Petrine.”

In fact St Paul warned about this very thing when he first wrote to the Corinthians:

I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”;another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?

The emphasis is on our shared baptism into Christ, but the implication is also that there is to be unity, and that unity–throughout the New Testament is unity with the teaching and ministry of the Apostles with Peter at the head–not following Peter to the exclusion of the others.

The same thread runs through all the teaching of the apostolic fathers of the church.
It is true that some Anglicans may have valid paperwork for their orders, but then if they are so intent on being one with the apostolic church whey don’t they go ahead and join it?

From this perspective an ordinary Catholic priest has orders that are more valid than the the Archbishop of Canterbury.
 
Randy_Carson said:
When is Apostolic Succession Valid?
May 11, 2017 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2017/05/apostolic-succession-valid.html

Many Anglicans–especially members of the breakaway groups–seem to think that apostolic orders are like pedigrees for dogs: if you have the paperwork to prove it your doggie is a show dog.

But apostolic succession is more than the paperwork.

Anglicans like to point to the fact that Church of England bishops have had their orders validated by being ordained by bishops from the Old Catholic Church. While their paperwork may all be in order, there is still an awful lot that is not in order.

For apostolic succession to be fully active and fully valid the person ordained needs to be in a living, active and full communion with the successor of Peter. Peter was the head of the apostles at the beginning and he still is today. Imagine what it would have been like if St Timothy, who was ordained by St Paul, had said, “I have the apostolic succession, but I am of the Pauline Church, not the Petrine.”

In fact St Paul warned about this very thing when he first wrote to the Corinthians:

I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”;another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?

The emphasis is on our shared baptism into Christ, but the implication is also that there is to be unity, and that unity–throughout the New Testament is unity with the teaching and ministry of the Apostles with Peter at the head–not following Peter to the exclusion of the others.

The same thread runs through all the teaching of the apostolic fathers of the church.
It is true that some Anglicans may have valid paperwork for their orders, but then if they are so intent on being one with the apostolic church whey don’t they go ahead and join it?

From this perspective an ordinary Catholic priest has orders that are more valid than the the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Click to expand...
Not to assume that there is some sort of uniformity amongst Anglicans, on this, or other points (motley is the word, you know), Anglicans sometimes will point to the joint consecrations of some Anglican/OC bishops, under the Agreement of Bonn (and starting 14 years later, the PNCC similarly), and, noting what Ott states (p. 458) about the transmission of orders, wonders what the RCC might say, specifically, on the matter (or intent, or form). And, more basically, again generalizing (a risky thing), Anglicans (some) may point out that Apostolicae curae is binding on RCs, not on the world, generally. And that valid, apostolic orders, and the classic creeds, do define the apostolic Church. Sort of like the Orthodox.

No one need agree with them; as noted they don’t agree with AC. Or with each other, often.
 
Randy_Carson said:
When is Apostolic Succession Valid?
May 11, 2017 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2017/05/apostolic-succession-valid.html

Many Anglicans–especially members of the breakaway groups–seem to think that apostolic orders are like pedigrees for dogs: if you have the paperwork to prove it your doggie is a show dog.

But apostolic succession is more than the paperwork.

Anglicans like to point to the fact that Church of England bishops have had their orders validated by being ordained by bishops from the Old Catholic Church. While their paperwork may all be in order, there is still an awful lot that is not in order.

For apostolic succession to be fully active and fully valid the person ordained needs to be in a living, active and full communion with the successor of Peter. Peter was the head of the apostles at the beginning and he still is today. Imagine what it would have been like if St Timothy, who was ordained by St Paul, had said, “I have the apostolic succession, but I am of the Pauline Church, not the Petrine.”

In fact St Paul warned about this very thing when he first wrote to the Corinthians:

I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”;another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?

The emphasis is on our shared baptism into Christ, but the implication is also that there is to be unity, and that unity–throughout the New Testament is unity with the teaching and ministry of the Apostles with Peter at the head–not following Peter to the exclusion of the others.

The same thread runs through all the teaching of the apostolic fathers of the church.
It is true that some Anglicans may have valid paperwork for their orders, but then if they are so intent on being one with the apostolic church whey don’t they go ahead and join it?

From this perspective an ordinary Catholic priest has orders that are more valid than the the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Click to expand...
While I believe Fr. Longenecker is sincere, I have always thought his commentary towards his former denomination has a tone similar to that of a former smoker towards those who still partake…
 
As long as the good Father is addressing the validity of Anglican orders, I’d be interested to hear what he says about Eastern Orthodox orders, and also whether he believes that the Cardinal Rebiba issue diminishes Catholic Apostolic Succession in any way.
 
If Fr Longenecker is suggesting that it would be no bad thing if Anglicans were to follow him and come into communion with Rome, that seems a straightforward and unexceptionable opinion. If he is suggesting that a priest’s orders cannot be valid unless he is in communion with Rome, isn’t he taking a somewhat unorthodox line?
 
Picky_Picky said:
If Fr Longenecker is suggesting that it would be no bad thing if Anglicans were to follow him and come into communion with Rome, that seems a straightforward and unexceptionable opinion. If he is suggesting that a priest’s orders cannot be valid unless he is in communion with Rome, isn’t he taking a somewhat unorthodox line?
Click to expand...
The former point is what the thrust of the article is directed toward. The validity issue, with respect to the Anglican/OC interactions and what might flow from that, in Anglicandom generally, is one that he curiously seems to concede as theoretically possible, but insufficient, as to the point of communion with Rome, and for full validity (liceity), at least. Which is obvious, from the RCC perspective. All sorts of folk who possess valid (illicit) orders are not in communion with Rome. It is not necessarily an unorthodox line to take, but it is a line that points at the Orthodox, as well as the Anglicans. Nor is it an overly hostile one. IMO.

I like the “breakaway” part.
 
Randy_Carson said:
For apostolic succession to be fully active and fully valid the person ordained needs to be in a living, active and full communion with the successor of Peter.
Click to expand...
This is inaccurate. The Eastern Orthodox maintains apostolic succession, and is not in “full communion with the successor of Peter”.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
While I believe Fr. Longenecker is sincere, I have always thought his commentary towards his former denomination has a tone similar to that of a former smoker towards those who still partake…
Click to expand...
Perhaps for good reason? 🤷
 
I would say basically apostolic succession be found if there is no interruption to the apostles.

Probably there was no problem with the early Anglican order of their priests but Anglican of today is pretty much different, at least from the Church view point. So it depends on their orders.
 
Fr Longnecker is continuing his statement from his previous posting regarding Apostolic Succession of Anglicans, not addressing Orthodox in any way:

“Anglo Catholic will pretend that he is “a Catholic but in the Anglican Church.” He believes he is a sacrificing priest confecting a true sacrament.
But an Evangelical Anglican will strenuously deny that he is a sacrificing priest and will intentionally repudiate such an idea that he is any kind of priest at all. Indeed he will insist that he is a “minister of God’s word.”–and so he is.
Meanwhile a modernist Anglican will say, “Priesthood! What a concept! Does anyone believe in that sort of thing nowadays?” As one modernist Anglican priest once said to me, “I see myself sort of like the shaman of the tribe.”
Uh huh…”
…
I suspect Cardinal Coccopalmerio–like most Catholics outside of England–has very little experience or understanding of Anglicanism at all, and is merely making ill informed, subjective and sentimental comments about the subject. The only Anglicans he has met are the ones the Anglicans send him–intellectual somewhat Anglo-Catholic diplomats who know how to talk Catholic when they need to.
He never meets the Calvinist Anglicans who can’t stand the Catholic Church or the radical homosexualist and feminist Anglicans who spit on the Catholic Church. He’s never met the radical modernists who think the Catholic Church is a dangerous monarchy from the Dark Ages. If he spent even one year in England observing and learning he would realize how silly his comments are.
Of course there are good Anglican priests who love Jesus and do good work. Nobody has suggested that their lives and faith are futile and worthless. But them being nice enough chaps who love Jesus is not the same thing as having valid Catholic orders.
 
SyroMalankara said:
Fr Longnecker is continuing his statement from his previous posting regarding Apostolic Succession of Anglicans, not addressing Orthodox in any way:

“Anglo Catholic will pretend that he is “a Catholic but in the Anglican Church.” He believes he is a sacrificing priest confecting a true sacrament.
But an Evangelical Anglican will strenuously deny that he is a sacrificing priest and will intentionally repudiate such an idea that he is any kind of priest at all. Indeed he will insist that he is a “minister of God’s word.”–and so he is.
Meanwhile a modernist Anglican will say, “Priesthood! What a concept! Does anyone believe in that sort of thing nowadays?” As one modernist Anglican priest once said to me, “I see myself sort of like the shaman of the tribe.”
Uh huh…”
…
I suspect Cardinal Coccopalmerio–like most Catholics outside of England–has very little experience or understanding of Anglicanism at all, and is merely making ill informed, subjective and sentimental comments about the subject. The only Anglicans he has met are the ones the Anglicans send him–intellectual somewhat Anglo-Catholic diplomats who know how to talk Catholic when they need to.
He never meets the Calvinist Anglicans who can’t stand the Catholic Church or the radical homosexualist and feminist Anglicans who spit on the Catholic Church. He’s never met the radical modernists who think the Catholic Church is a dangerous monarchy from the Dark Ages. If he spent even one year in England observing and learning he would realize how silly his comments are.
Of course there are good Anglican priests who love Jesus and do good work. Nobody has suggested that their lives and faith are futile and worthless. But them being nice enough chaps who love Jesus is not the same thing as having valid Catholic orders.
Click to expand...
And thus we see the motleydom of Anglicanism displayed. I’ve noticed that point myself. Mentioned it occasionally.

But he then moves to the concept that even if the paperwork is (may be) proper, the validity is not, not being in communion with Rome. Which is a broad brush that reaches beyond Anglicanism. And the main group that would address would be Orthodox.
 
I would imagine that one of the non-negotiables is that it couldn’t have been interrupted.

Otherwise, there is no direct link to Christ and virtually anyone can claim to be a part of it.
 
Vonsalza said:
I would imagine that one of the non-negotiables is that it couldn’t have been interrupted.

Otherwise, there is no direct link to Christ and virtually anyone can claim to be a part of it.
Click to expand...
Or, if it was interrupted, it could be re-infused, which is the logic of those looking to the joint consecrations of OC/PNCC and Anglican bishops as having done so. Assuming it was interrupted, of course.
 
GKC said:
Or, if it was interrupted, it could be re-infused, which is the logic of those looking to the joint consecrations of OC/PNCC and Anglican bishops as having done so. Assuming it was interrupted, of course.
Click to expand...
Its probably not worth mentioning, since it probably has been stated before - any “joint consecration”, using unaltered old Catholic rites, would - in Rome’s eyes, make the ordained an ‘Old Catholic priest’ not Anglican, that the ordained is functioning a vicar of an Anglican parish seemly is irrelevant to that. Just as a validly ordained Orthodox priest, in warzone, middle of nowhere, Antartica pastoring at the nearest Catholic parish doesn’t necessarily make the priest a Catholic.
 
SyroMalankara said:
Its probably not worth mentioning, since it probably has been stated before - any “joint consecration”, using unaltered old Catholic rites, would - in Rome’s eyes, make the ordained an ‘Old Catholic priest’ not Anglican, that the ordained is functioning a vicar of an Anglican parish seemly is irrelevant to that. Just as a validly ordained Orthodox priest, in warzone, middle of nowhere, Antartica pastoring at the nearest Catholic parish doesn’t necessarily make the priest a Catholic.
Click to expand...
The consecration Rite used in the joint consecrations being discussed was the 1662 Anglican Rite. Joint means only that, in such a co-consecration, while both OCs and Anglican bishops were co-consecrators, the Rite was that of the recipient’s Church.
 
Randy_Carson said:
When is Apostolic Succession Valid?
May 11, 2017 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2017/05/apostolic-succession-valid.html

Many Anglicans–especially members of the breakaway groups–seem to think that apostolic orders are like pedigrees for dogs: if you have the paperwork to prove it your doggie is a show dog.

But apostolic succession is more than the paperwork.

Anglicans like to point to the fact that Church of England bishops have had their orders validated by being ordained by bishops from the Old Catholic Church. While their paperwork may all be in order, there is still an awful lot that is not in order.

For apostolic succession to be fully active and fully valid the person ordained needs to be in a living, active and full communion with the successor of Peter. Peter was the head of the apostles at the beginning and he still is today. Imagine what it would have been like if St Timothy, who was ordained by St Paul, had said, “I have the apostolic succession, but I am of the Pauline Church, not the Petrine.”

In fact St Paul warned about this very thing when he first wrote to the Corinthians:

I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”;another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?

The emphasis is on our shared baptism into Christ, but the implication is also that there is to be unity, and that unity–throughout the New Testament is unity with the teaching and ministry of the Apostles with Peter at the head–not following Peter to the exclusion of the others.

The same thread runs through all the teaching of the apostolic fathers of the church.
It is true that some Anglicans may have valid paperwork for their orders, but then if they are so intent on being one with the apostolic church whey don’t they go ahead and join it?

From this perspective an ordinary Catholic priest has orders that are more valid than the the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Click to expand...
Hello Randy,
Code: 
The results of an ordination are invisible.  If you were standing next to an ordained person and a non-ordained person you wouldn't know which one was ordained.  There is therefore no way of knowing if the ordination is working in the way it should.
Isaac had the ability to give one of his sons a blessing.  His intention was to give the blessing to Esau.  Rebekah and Jacob dealt deceitfully with Isaac and convinced Isaac to bless Jacob.  Worthy of note here is that even after Isaac learned that he had been tricked, he couldn't take the blessing back.
Even though both the ordination and the blessing are invisible and any effects they have can't be seen, let's assume that both have some sort of value.  If the blessing Jacob received was valid even though he received it through trickery, why would not the ordination be valid?
 
The key is the Isaac is the giver, not one who claims the authority in the place of Isaac, without Isaac’s approval
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top