ELCA Apostolic succession

Simon_Templar · #41 1st August 2009, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Mikeb85

We do not believe in a 'mechanical' Apostolic Succession in which anyone who's had hands laid on by a Bishop in a chain is automatically a valid Bishop. As others have said, valid orders exist only within the Church.

This idea of 'mechanical' succession seems to exist mostly among schismatic groups, in an attempt to justify their schisms...

The issue isn't mechanics, but rather lasting character. The question is not can anyone be validly ordained if they follow the right mechanism, but rather, IF someone is validly ordained and IS a priest or a bishop, do they CEASE to be one if they become schizmatic? In shorter terms, once it is truly done, can it be undone?

choirfiend · #42 2nd August 2009, 02:38 PM

Yes. Sacramental grace is not a "free card" that can never be undone. Mankind's choice against God's will can break what was good. Baptism isn't a free card into heaven, marriages can be tragically ended, and you can betray your ordination if you refuse to repent from schism.

Mikeb85 · #43 2nd August 2009, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by Simon_Templar

The issue isn't mechanics, but rather lasting character.

And character does not determine the validity of sacraments celebrated by a Bishop/Priest. A heretical priest in the Church will still be able to celebrate valid sacraments (though there's no saying what effect they'll have on the health of that individual priest) since sacraments are not a function of the individual priest, but the Church as a whole. The Eucharist cannot be celebrated amongst only clergy, lay people have to be present as well. It's a function of the Church, not of the Priest/Bishop. Of course, as Bishops oversee the Church, they must either be present for sacraments to be valid, or give permission to a Priest to serve in their place (Priests serve only under a Bishop, not on their own - a Priest who is not under a Bishop cannot celebrate the Liturgy).

Only communion with the Church guarantees valid sacraments.

Originally Posted by Simon_Templar

The question is not can anyone be validly ordained if they follow the right mechanism, but rather, IF someone is validly ordained and IS a priest or a bishop, do they CEASE to be one if they become schizmatic? In shorter terms, once it is truly done, can it be undone?

Yes, Bishops can be defrocked and/or anathemized... In fact, doing a quick internet search reveals cases of Anglican/Episcopal Bishops who were defrocked.

Simon_Templar · #44 3rd August 2009, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by choirfiend

Yes. Sacramental grace is not a "free card" that can never be undone. Mankind's choice against God's will can break what was good. Baptism isn't a free card into heaven, marriages can be tragically ended, and you can betray your ordination if you refuse to repent from schism.

I understand, and agree with that. However, the question would be, if you are baptized once, do you ever need to be baptized again?

Simon_Templar · #45 3rd August 2009, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by Mikeb85

Yes, Bishops can be defrocked and/or anathemized... In fact, doing a quick internet search reveals cases of Anglican/Episcopal Bishops who were defrocked.

I'm not 100% sure what the Anglican position on this is actually. I know that in all Churches Bishops and Priests can be defrocked. However, I think in the western tradition when a bishop or priest is defrocked it is a removal of their authority as a representative of the Church, but not a removal of their ordination.

As I understand it this is why the Catholic Church would say that the activities of a defrocked bishop would be valid, but illicit.
I was not aware that the eastern Churches did not consider sacraments to have the same 'indellible' character.

choirfiend · #46 3rd August 2009, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Simon_Templar

I understand, and agree with that. However, the question would be, if you are baptized once, do you ever need to be baptized again?

"I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins,"

We believe in one baptism. So a person who was baptized and apostatized would be received into the Church by some other means--Chrismation, Confession, Communion. Being received back into the Church and receiving that grace renews. In fact, Confession is often spoken of a renewal of baptism, whereby we receive remission of sins and come away washed.

choirfiend · #47 3rd August 2009, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Simon_Templar

I was not aware that the eastern Churches did not consider sacraments to have the same 'indellible' character.

We're not the same on nearly everything as the Western Churches. The Orthodox Church approaches most things from a completely different standpoint and mindset. That's why sometimes communicating on here is difficult--we are coming from another background, have different underlying presuppositions, and mean different things while using the same terms. It is very valuable to study the Orthodox beliefs as a whole, rather than trying to separate one issue--because there may be 20 different fundamental concepts that feed into that issue!

JJM · #48 3rd August 2009, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by Simon_Templar

I'm not 100% sure what the Anglican position on this is actually. I know that in all Churches Bishops and Priests can be defrocked. However, I think in the western tradition when a bishop or priest is defrocked it is a removal of their authority as a representative of the Church, but not a removal of their ordination.

As I understand it this is why the Catholic Church would say that the activities of a defrocked bishop would be valid, but illicit.
I was not aware that the eastern Churches did not consider sacraments to have the same 'indellible' character.

Yes. They are a priest forever in the order of melkizedek. Thus I'm pretty sure a laicized Catholic priest can still hear confessions under canon 976.