What Is An Apostolic Church?

[Adam Warlock]

Anglicans have always had bishops, dating back to the days when England was Catholic. They didn't get rid of them during the Reformation, and they keep good ordination records. I think that some Lutherans in Europe did the same (though most Lutherans do not believe in the need for succession). Old Catholic bishops have participated in Anglican/Episcopalian ordinations, and Episcopalian bishops are now participating in ELCA ordinations.

It gets messy, I know

 

[Dark_Lite]

Pretty sure Lutherans are not considered members of this forum.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Christ's_Warrior is correct.
This includes the Catholic(Roman and Eastern), Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian, OCA, Antiochian et c) , Oriental Orthodox (Coptic, Ethiopian, Indian, Assyrian et c).

I've heard that the Anglican churches, Old Catholic and the Lutheran churches are included, but I've also heard that they aren't.

I was on staff when the decisions were made.
Lutherans are not involved because they dont have Bishops, and Luther was not a Bishop and could not pass on ordinations anyway.

Anglicans and Old Catholics are listed.

What do you think...

It does matter doesn't it? To say it's Apostolic includes the fact that it was established by an Apostle. Right?

Forgive me...

Bishops - as long as they are from the Apostles ordination, have succession.

Anglicans and Old Catholic are illicitly ordained, but for the purpose, their Bishops came from Apostolic stalk.

 

[Albion]

I was on staff when the decisions were made.
Lutherans are not involved because they dont have Bishops,

I thought at the time that that decision made sense, BUT Lutherans certainly DO have bishops in Apostolic Succession. The state churches of Scandinavia, for instance. No unknown splinter groups they!

They just are not the norm for Lutheran churches. On the other hand, it was Luther's position that the true church is not defined by polity and so there are today Lutheran bodies that are episcopal, congregational, or presbyterian in governance. The Lutherans do seem to have a good point to make if they want to be considered part of this forum. On yet another hand, I think the particular affiliation of the poster might matter. If they belong to a Lutheran body with bishops, that might be significant, but if they belong to say, the LC-Missouri Synod....

Anglicans and Old Catholic are illicitly ordained,

There really isn't any such thing as being illicitly ordained. Either you are validy ordained or you are not.

 

[Albion]

How can anyone know for sure that one of these clergy of a Protestant denomination who claims apostolic succession really has it when, if it does exist in their denomination, it would be the rare exception to the rule?

Well, there's nothing "rare" about bishops in Apostolic Successsion among the Lutheran churches of the world. And as for being sure, no one can be absolutely "sure" of any of the lines of AS a bishop or church might present to you, no matter what denomination or communion. All they can do is present a lineup of consecrating bishops dating back to the Apostles. If some did not have the proper intention, for example, it would be almost impossible to know.

 

[placidus]

This is important and not said enough:illicit ordination is a kinda' oxy-moron. Either one has lineage in apostolic succession or it doesn't exist.To acknowledge succession as a reality - then to undermine it's efficacy because one didn't have papal permission to do so, for example, is to create another standard for succession. Does Rome for example, have a copyright for succession?
On the other hand, fraudulent attempts at obtaining succession (to legitimize one's stature, church,etc) require a scrupulous inspection of whom succeeded whom
placidus

 

[Albion]

This is important and not said enough:illicit ordination is a kinda' oxy-moron. Either one has lineage in apostolic succession or it doesn't exist.To acknowledge succession as a reality - then to undermine it's efficacy because one didn't have papal permission to do so, for example, is to create another standard for succession. Does Rome for example, have a copyright for succession?

It claims to have a lock on the validity and oversight of everything, thanks to its claim of being the particular denomination God did everything in the Bible for. But your observations are still very perceptive, good to have.

 

[Ave Maria]

An Apostolic Church is a church that claims apostolic succession.

 

[Albion]

An Apostolic Church is a church that claims apostolic succession.

No more complicated than that!

However, we recognize that there are pentecostal churches that use the term for themselves, believing that a leading characteristic of the early church (i.e. Apostolic) was the use of tongues-speaking, etc.

For purposes of CF, the forum is for the first group of churches, not the second.

 

[RadixLecti]

An Apostolic Church is a church that claims apostolic succession.

I think for the purposes of an eccumenical discussion of theology this is the only working definition. I would add however that one of the characteristics of being an Apostolic Church is the belief that the validity and spiritual authority of that particular Church is due to its possession of the historic episcopate. I believe this is what historically distinguished Anglicans from those Lutherans that preserved the historic line of bishops: While both groups preserved the actual lineage of bishops, only Anglicans taught that the episcopal line was necessary for the authority of the Church.

While different groups may believe that Anglicans do not completely preserve the teaching of the Apostles, it is an objective fact that the Anglican theological system is partly based on the idea of Apostolic authority descending through the line of bishops. Whether or not they are actually in possession of that spiritual authority is another issue. The fact is that they believe that they are and this is necessary for the validity of Anglicanism is what distinguishes them from Lutheranism.

 

[Albion]

I think for the purposes of an eccumenical discussion of theology this is the only working definition. I would add however that one of the characteristics of being an Apostolic Church is the belief that the validity and spiritual authority of that particular Church is due to its possession of the historic episcopate. I believe this is what historically distinguished Anglicans from those Lutherans that preserved the historic line of bishops: While both groups preserved the actual lineage of bishops, only Anglicans taught that the episcopal line was necessary for the authority of the Church.

A good case can be made, however, that the Anglican Church has never taken that POV. We're defensive when the Roman Church declares, for political reasons of its own, that our priests are not valid, but that's a different matter.

Don't worry about it, but you may note that there is no mention of Apostolic Succession validity in either the Articles or the Quadrilateral, yet to talk with the average Anglican or Episcopalian you'd think it was one of our most cherished beliefs. We HAVE A.S., it's valid, and we're going to keep it...but WHY is never pondered by the typical Anglican.

 

[RadixLecti]

A good case can be made, however, that the Anglican Church has never taken that POV. We're defensive when the Roman Church declares, for political reasons of its own, that our priests are not valid, but that's a different matter.

Don't worry about it, but you may note that there is no mention of Apostolic Succession validity in either the Articles or the Quadrilateral, yet to talk with the average Anglican or Episcopalian you'd think it was one of our most cherished beliefs. We HAVE A.S., it's valid, and we're going to keep it...but WHY is never pondered by the typical Anglican.

I think my experiences with who is a typical Anglican might not be the same as yours, so this may be a better discussion for STR. However, A.S. as a theological concept was referenced by Anglican theologians such as Richard Hooker and John Jewel. It was always inferred from the Ordinal to the Book of Common Prayer, and the necessity of the Historic Episcopate was spelled out in the Quadrilateral. There has been a history within Anglicanism of whether or not AS was the "Esse" or the "Bene Esse" of the Church, but that is the most significant disagreement that I am aware of.

As far as Anglicans having A.S. that is valid, I think that at this point that cannot be said of all Anglicans:

First of all, a small percentage of Anglicans (such as the Episcopal Church) have women "bishops." Since the faith of the Apostles clearly indicates that the sacrament of ordination can only be applied to a man, it cannot be said that the historic episcopate has been passed on through these groups.

Secondly, not all Anglicans believe in the faith of the Apostles. In order to have Apostolic authority one must be proclaiming the faith of the Apostles. This is axiomatic, since that's basically what the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is claiming: "this church has the authority handed down from the Apostoles and proclaims their teaching."
For example, American Episcopalians do not believe that the historic Christian faith as received by the Apostles and recorded in the Scriptures can be said to be objective spiritual truth. They have publically and officially stated that they believe the faith expressed in the Scriptures and the orthdox Church Fathers is not a perfect, unchanging, and authoritative record of the revelation of God. Do not misunderstand what I'm saying: I'm not suggesting that they can't have AS because of their belief of what the ancient faith is. I'm saying that they don't have AS because they don't believe that the ancient faith is actually authoritative for today. This means that they intentionally don't hold to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession itself. If you reject the idea of Apostolic Authority then you are rejecting the very idea of Apostolic Succession since the two are one and the same.

So to clarify, I'm not saying that they don't hold to A.S. because I disagree with their interpretations on doctrine. I'm saying that they don't hold to A.S. because they officially do not actually claim Apostolic authority because they do not believe that the teaching of the Apostles can be taught as being authoritative. In other words, I'm not saying anything that the heirarchy of that Church would not agree with. It's just a difference of perspective and the fact that even though sometimes groups use the same words, they don't always mean the same things for everyone.

(I would make the distinction however, that despite the fact that the church heirarchy has made these statements, that not everyone in the Episcopal Church is in agreement with them)

 

[Albion]

the necessity of the Historic Episcopate was spelled out in the Quadrilateral.

But not Apostolic Succession. Do not assume that the one means the other.

As far as Anglicans having A.S. that is valid, I think that at this point that cannot be said of all Anglicans:

First of all, a small percentage of Anglicans (such as the Episcopal Church) have women "bishops."

OK, I usually don't raise that issue here, but OK. What, therefore, do you think of the ACNA's permission for women priests (unlike the Continuing Anglican churches)? Acceptable because they aren't bishops although a priest is a delegate of the bishop? Or perhaps it's an issue that is yet to be decided?

Secondly, not all Anglicans believe in the faith of the Apostles In order to have Apostolic authority one must be proclaiming the faith of the Apostles. This is axiomatic, since that's basically what the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is claiming: "this church has the authority handed down from the Apostoles and proclaims their teaching

Do not misunderstand what I'm saying: I'm not suggesting that they can't have AS because of their belief of what the ancient faith is. I'm saying that they don't have AS because they don't believe that the ancient faith is actually authoritative for today. This means that they intentionally don't hold to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession itself. If you reject the idea of Apostolic Authority then you are rejecting the very idea of Apostolic Succession since the two are one and the same.

Hmmm. I don't know. Is there much support for that POV anywhere in the Anglican world?

 

[RadixLecti]

OK, I usually don't raise that issue here, but OK. What, therefore, do you think of the ACNA's permission for women priests (unlike the Continuing Anglican churches)? Acceptable because they aren't bishops although a priest is a delegate of the bishop? Or perhaps it's an issue that is yet to be decided?

I've posted in reference to this so many times before, and I thought that you had responded to my posts.

Hmmm. I don't know. Is there much support for that POV anywhere in the Anglican world?

Yes, there is. However, it shouldn't matter for this forum since it isn't STR, and isn't labled to Anglican specifics. The OP is "What is an Apostolic Church"?

 

[Albion]

I've posted in reference to this so many times before, and I thought that you had responded to my posts.

If so, I've forgotten what we said then.

However, it shouldn't matter for this forum since it isn't STR, and isn't labled to Anglican specifics.

Huh? This is one of the few Apostolic churches represented here, and Apostolic Succession is the determining factor in who gets to belong to this forum. Sounds relevant to me, but if you're reluctant to talk further about it, I'm OK with that.

 

[RadixLecti]

If so, I've forgotten what we said then.

I've been pretty vocal about being opposed to it. In the ACNA it only occurs in a few diocese right now, and there is considerable controversy over the issue. If they were to begin to make women bishops, the apostolic line would cease there as well. However, the ACNA is just getting off the ground and its major eccumenical partners are strongly opposed to WO. I think there is still hope that the practice will be restricted to the diaconate (or be limited to a separate order of "deaconess") within a few years. If not, then I'll leave.

Huh? This is one of the few Apostolic churches represented here, and Apostolic Succession is the determining factor in who gets to belong to this forum. Sounds relevant to me, but if you're reluctant to talk further about it, I'm OK with that.

Yes, the belief in Apostolic Succession is the determing factor, not just the Historic Episcopate:
You said that Apostolic Succession is more than just preserving the Historic Episcopate (and I agree). However, you are also saying that you believe that Anglicanism does not believe that Apostolic Authority is transmitted through Apostolic Succession, and does not claim that it is necessary.

So if you reject Apostolic Succession then why would you post in a forum where belief in Apostolic Succession is the determining factor?

 

[Albion]

I've been pretty vocal about being opposed to it. In the ACNA it only occurs in a few diocese right now, and there is considerable controversy over the issue.

OK. I just asked how you felt about it. It's still a church that ordains women, as far as I'm concerned.

If they were to begin to make women bishops, the apostolic line would cease there as well. However, the ACNA is just getting off the ground and its major eccumenical partners are strongly opposed to WO. I think there is still hope that the practice will be restricted to the diaconate (or be limited to a separate order of "deaconess") within a few years. If not, then I'll leave.

Interesting. I agree that there's a chance that one or some of the constitutent church bodies might back out if this is ever brought up front and center for a final decision. My guess is that it never will be.

So if you reject Apostolic Succession

No one's rejecting Apostolic Succession.

 

[RadixLecti]

Interesting. I agree that there's a chance that one or some of the constitutent church bodies might back out if this is ever brought up front and center for a final decision. My guess is that it never will be.

From the people that I've spoken with, it seems that moving the Church toward orthodoxy is still possible. I am somewhat cynical about this being successful. However, considering that only 4 out of 30 dioceses ordain women (the rest are opposed) it seems that the numbers are strongly on the side or orthodoxy.

My guess is that orthodox Anglicanism is basically over. If the Continuers couldn't make it work back in the 1970s it seems unlikely that we will be able to either. If ACNA doesn't get their act together quickly, it seems unlikely that there will ever be an orthodox Anglican body in North America.

No one's rejecting Apostolic Succession.

Ok. From your statements it really sounded like you were opposed to the idea. What then do you beleive about Apostolic Succession (as opposed to the Historic Episcopate)?

 

[Albion]

From the people that I've spoken with, it seems that moving the Church toward orthodoxy is still possible. I am somewhat cynical about this being successful.

That pretty much sums up my own view of the matter.

My guess is that orthodox Anglicanism is basically over. If the Continuers couldn't make it work back in the 1970s it seems unlikely that we will be able to either.

Yes and no. The Continuing Churches are still here, but ACNA probably sealed the fate of both itself and them by not joining with them but instead going off on its own. There are reasons for that decision, of course.

it seems unlikely that there will ever be an orthodox Anglican body in North America.

Oh, there are a number of them, but the problem is that they are small.

 

[RadixLecti]

Yes and no. The Continuing Churches are still here, but ACNA probably sealed the fate of both itself and them by not joining with them but instead going off on its own.

OK, so which continuing church should the ACNA have joined? I think there's about 40+ of them and the largest one has about 9,000 members total and the smallest one is primarily composed of bishops. Most of them believe the same things, and none of them ordain women. So, why are they so fragmented? Is 35 years not a long enough time to work out their differences? How can you say that ACNA went off on its own, when the continuers aren't willing to even merge with each other? Since ACNA wanted to attempt to create a new unified Anglican province it doesn't seem like there was much of a point in trying to further that goal with tiny splinter sects that don't seem to value unity.

Do you have any idea why they haven't merged into a single structure? (or at least into 2 or 3 different structures?)

Oh, there are a number of them, but the problem is that they are small.

I truly don't mean this in a derogatory way, but I don't think that you can call a Christian group that has only 15-20 congregations and refuses to merge with other like-minded groups "orthodox."