Since the founding of this forum I've noticed there have been quite a few disputes as to which groups possess Apostolic Succession. There seems to be a confusion surrounding the idea of Apostolic Succession and that of the Historic Episcopate:
As I understand it the Historic Episcopate is more of a secular term that describes the unbroken line of Bishops (Bishops ordained in some fashion by other bishops) that link a contemporary ecclesial structure with the ancient unified church that schismed after the council of Chalcedon.
Apostolic Succession is a theological term that states that the authority of Christ was passed down by the apostles through the Historic Episcopate, and that authority now rests within churches that maintain that connection through their lineage of validly ordained bishops.
SO... Validity of ordination is determined by each church's set of theological principles. I've noticed that none of the Apostolic churches completely agrees 100% with the standards of validity of ordinations set by the other churches.
My question is this:
When you dispute the Apostolic Succession of another church are you disputing that the authority of Christ has been correctly passed down through that church, or are you also disputing the lineage of Bishops from a secular standpoint as well? i.e. are you disputing their version of the Historic Episcopate? - the idea that an unbroken lineage of church leaders (considered Bishops by that particular church, but not perhaps by yours) connects them to the Ancient Church, regardless of the validity of those Bishops?
__________________
"When I see a flower like this I think of God's extravagance. Nature can't help but make something beautiful."
--Bear Grylls
"A lover will always outwork a worker" --Mike Bickle
"Anglicanism has been built on three pillars: martyrs, revival, and the historic episcopate." --Archbishop Henry Orombi
I am disputing it based on the former, not the latter.
__________________
"There is one true Church, the really ancient Church into which are enrolled those who are righteous according to God's ordinance.... In essence, in idea, in origin, in preeminence we say that the ancient Catholic Church is the only Church." - Clement of Alexandria, Stromata (Before 215 AD)
"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).
Is not just the descent of Bishops and through them the whole Clergy, it is the descent of Orthodox teaching through the Apostles.
It is the latter, teaching, that I should think of prime importance, because whilst orders can be ,'given,', as it were, right teaching, or the Revelation of Christ to the Saints, Scripture and the Councils, constitute the Faith. If one holds the faith and lacks orders, the deficiency can be made aright. If one lacks the faith what good are orders on their own?
I've noticed that none of the Apostolic churches completely agrees 100% with the standards of validity of ordinations set by the other churches.
I do not believe this is correct. Nobody disputes the validity of the ordinations of the Orthodox churches of the East, and nobody but some of the Orthodox would dispute the validity of the ordinations of the Roman Catholic Church.
My question is this:
When you dispute the Apostolic Succession of another church are you disputing that the authority of Christ has been correctly passed down through that church, or are you also disputing the lineage of Bishops from a secular standpoint as well? i.e. are you disputing their version of the Historic Episcopate? - the idea that an unbroken lineage of church leaders (considered Bishops by that particular church, but not perhaps by yours) connects them to the Ancient Church, regardless of the validity of those Bishops?
A church who claims to have the historic episcopate can prove so just by listing the consecration lineage of their bishop. One dispute about this would be if someone in the lineage was not, in fact, consecrated a bishop by another bishop. Another dispute would be whether the lineage is "historic" if someone wants to argue about whether "historic" means valid. For example, women are bishops according to the Episcopal Church in the US, but others would say this does not maintain the historic episcopate.
To answer the OP's question directly, both Apostolic Succession and the claim of Historic Episcopate can be challenged when a church's doctrine is not that taught by the Apostles.
__________________
Gracious Father, we pray for thy holy Catholic Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ thy Son our Savior. Amen.
I just want to add a question...what about instances of self-ordination that has happened in the past?
Self-ordination is impossible in a church upholding Apostolic Succession. Bishops, priests, and deacons are ordained by bishops.
__________________
Gracious Father, we pray for thy holy Catholic Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ thy Son our Savior. Amen.
Since the founding of this forum I've noticed there have been quite a few disputes as to which groups possess Apostolic Succession. There seems to be a confusion surrounding the idea of Apostolic Succession and that of the Historic Episcopate:
As I understand it the Historic Episcopate is more of a secular term that describes the unbroken line of Bishops (Bishops ordained in some fashion by other bishops) that link a contemporary ecclesial structure with the ancient unified church that schismed after the council of Chalcedon.
Apostolic Succession is a theological term that states that the authority of Christ was passed down by the apostles through the Historic Episcopate, and that authority now rests within churches that maintain that connection through their lineage of validly ordained bishops.
SO... Validity of ordination is determined by each church's set of theological principles. I've noticed that none of the Apostolic churches completely agrees 100% with the standards of validity of ordinations set by the other churches.
My question is this:
When you dispute the Apostolic Succession of another church are you disputing that the authority of Christ has been correctly passed down through that church, or are you also disputing the lineage of Bishops from a secular standpoint as well? i.e. are you disputing their version of the Historic Episcopate? - the idea that an unbroken lineage of church leaders (considered Bishops by that particular church, but not perhaps by yours) connects them to the Ancient Church, regardless of the validity of those Bishops?
I think that most people (perhaps especially the orthodox who do not think that anyone esle has apostolic succession) dispute the validity of the sacrament or whether someone loses apostolic succession when they leave the church.
But I think (and I can be corrected if I'm wrong) that Leo XIII also questioned whether the episcopal bishops had been ordained by secular leaders. However, I could easily be wrong because I don't think I've read the whole thing thorugh, and it was a while ago.
It seems to me that given Vatican II the Catholic church would dispute if anyone not in communion with the pope has authority to teach but would not dispute thier ability to perform the sacraments.
__________________
Kyrie Eleison,
JJM
We seek not conquest, but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. . . the Catholic church would dispute if anyone not in communion with the pope has authority to teach but would not dispute thier ability to perform the sacraments.
Why do you think so?
__________________
Gracious Father, we pray for thy holy Catholic Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ thy Son our Savior. Amen.
This is from The Second Vatican Councils's Dogmatic Constiution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 21:
"And the Sacred Council teaches that by Episcopal consecration the fullness of the sacrament of Orders is conferred, that fullness of power, namely, which both in the Church's liturgical practice and in the language of the Fathers of the Church is called the high priesthood, the supreme power of the sacred ministry. But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college."
__________________
Kyrie Eleison,
JJM
We seek not conquest, but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
What matters is that churches follow the teachings of Christ according to biblical standards. Otherwise, apostolic succession is meaningless.
__________________ Sola Scriptura is Eternal Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, 2 Peter 1:20. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams (October 11, 1798). Roe vs. Wade - 45 million **Proverbs 6:16-17 - states that there are seven things that are an abomination to the Lord; one of them is the shedding of innocentblood. The B.O. Must Go! Huckabee in 2012
Linear Mode
