Apostolic Succession

[InnerPhyre]

My Orthodox brothers and sisters,

A thread was posted in OBOB asking the difference between the valid succession of the Orthodox, and the invalid succession of Protestant denominations. We all agreed that both the Catholic and Orthodox have valid claims of apostolic succession, but I was wondering if the Orthodox church holds the same view, or if you consider the Roman Catholic claim of succession invalid. The subject of the split between our churches is somewhat touchy and different people often provide different responses. Thanks


By His will, may we be one again some day soon.

 

[Breetai]

By His will, may we be one again some day soon.

Amen!

 

[Suzannah]

My Orthodox brothers and sisters,

A thread was posted in OBOB asking the difference between the valid succession of the Orthodox, and the invalid succession of Protestant denominations. We all agreed that both the Catholic and Orthodox have valid claims of apostolic succession, but I was wondering if the Orthodox church holds the same view, or if you consider the Roman Catholic claim of succession invalid. The subject of the split between our churches is somewhat touchy and different people often provide different responses. Thanks


By His will, may we be one again some day soon.

Thanks for your sensitivity!
Orthodoxy views the succession as valid. We simply do not accept the papacy and its infallibility. We believe that Peter and his successors are first among equals, but not infallible and not in authority over other bishops.
I hope this helps you...
Love,
Suzannah

 

[InnerPhyre]

That helps alot! Thanks. ::throws blessings your way::

 

[Suzannah]

awww....sweet! I'm going to give them to someone in Struggles/Depression....THANKS!!!

 

[Patristic]

To my knowledge the apostolic succession of the Catholic Church is not denied by the Orthodox Church.

 

[Polycarp1]

Without intending to provoke a debate, I'd welcome hearing whether there are any authoritative pronouncements in Orthodoxy or what the Orthodox consensus is on the Apostolic Succession claimed by the Anglican Communion (e.g., Church of England, Anglican Churches of Scotland/Canada/Australia, Episcopal Church in the US) and some Lutheran churches (e.g., Church of Sweden, Church of Finland, ELCA in the US).

Obviously, we claim it, and preserving it is important to us Anglicans. Lutherans, IIRC, take a more "Orthodox" approach in saying that the preservation of right doctrine is the mark of apostolicity. I know this was discussed by conferences of theologians from the two churches early in the 20th Century, but I have no clue what they arrived at or whether it was ratified by the patriarchs, etc.

 

[NewToLife]

By and large Orthodoxy does not comment on Anglican orders however my understanding of this is that Anglican orders are not generally seen as valid but that a converting Anglican priest or bishop might have his orders recognised as a matter of economia.

My own priest was previously an Anglican vicar and his Anglican ordination was not recognised. He was not required to undergo the full normal studies/preparation prior to being priested within Orthodoxy however.

 

[Benedicta00]

Polycarp and patristic,

Do you realize that you icons are almost identical? Are they of the same saint?

 

[Photini]

Polycarp and patristic,

Do you realize that you icons are almost identical? Are they of the same saint?

They're not the same Saint. I have a feeling Polycarp's is of Saint Polycarp. But I'm not sure who's Patristic is of. I was thinking maybe St John Chrysostom...but I cannot make out the letters well enough to tell.

 

[The Prokeimenon!]

The Orthodox certainly recognize the Roman succession of Bishops from the Apostles, but I think Apostolic succession is also viewed as a continuation of Apostolic doctrine, not just people. So, the answer then is yes and no: Yes, the Orthodox agree there is a physical line of succession from the current Pope of Rome back to Saint Peter, but the Catholic Church has gone astray from the doctrine of Saint Peter and the Apostles.

As for Anglicans- I belive the succession was actually broken at one point, though I don't know when or by whom...

Moses

 

[Polycarp1]

My icon is supposed to be of St. Polycarp, Bishop and Martyr, and I took it (with permission) from a website devoted to his works. I'm not sure who Patristic's icon is of.

As for Anglicans- I belive the succession was actually broken at one point, though I don't know when or by whom...

Moses

Peace to you, Moses. To respond to your comment here from our perspective, the Catholic hierarchy at a time of bitter sectarianism slightly over 100 years ago claimed that the Church of England's line was broken with Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury during the time of Queen Elizabeth I. However, painstaking research has demonstrated that at least one of the bishops consecrating Apb. Parker was certainly in the Apostolic Succession, and there are no real grounds for doubting the validity of the consecration of the others, though some information that would assure their validity has disappeared during the conflicts that followed (the time of Cromwell, for example). However, the American church traces its lineage to the Scottish Episcopal Church, which, along with the (Anglican) Church of Ireland, represents an entirely separate line of succession not dependent on Parker at all.

I can of course understand the issue of doctrinal differences marring Orthodox acceptance of Anglican orders. But I was curious to understand, in view of the Orthodox perception of Catholicism, what Orthodoxy felt towards our church's orders.

(I presume a similar view is held towards Lutherans, for much the same reasons.)

 

[The Prokeimenon!]

God Bless you. Thank you for clarifying, Polycarp.

Moses