Apostolic Succession vs. The Historic Episcopate

RadixLecti · #1 13th July 2009, 02:04 PM

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?

Ave Maria · #2 13th July 2009, 03:51 PM

I am disputing it based on the former, not the latter.

luckyfredsdad · #3 6th August 2009, 02:55 PM

The APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION!!

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?

Wigglesworth · #4 4th September 2009, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by RadixLecti

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.

FaithGuyX · #5 12th September 2009, 09:55 PM

Hi...I'm new here.

I just want to add a question...what about instances of self-ordination that has happened in the past?
Not sure which denomination had this happen.

Wigglesworth · #6 13th September 2009, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by FaithGuyX

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.

JJM · #7 8th October 2009, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by RadixLecti

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.

Wigglesworth · #8 22nd October 2009, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by JJM

. . . 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?

JJM · #9 23rd October 2009, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by Wigglesworth

Why do you think so?

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."

salida · #10 6th November 2009, 02:45 PM

What matters is that churches follow the teachings of Christ according to biblical standards. Otherwise, apostolic succession is meaningless.