Apostolic Succession

[TomUK]

My question is simple - can the Anglican Church maintain their claim to apostolic succession? I know far too little about the topic to be able to contribute, but i have been informed that the Roman Catholic church claims that the line of Apostolic succession has been broken in the Anglican church. Has this been substantiated?

 

[Philip]

My question is simple - can the Anglican Church maintain their claim to apostolic succession?

No, I don't believe they can.

I know far too little about the topic to be able to contribute, but i have been informed that the Roman Catholic church claims that the line of Apostolic succession has been broken in the Anglican church. Has this been substantiated?

The Anglican Church (of which I was once a member) can trace its bishops back to the Apostles. However, Apostolic Succession requires more than this. It requires that the bishops also maintain the complete faith handed down by the Apostles. Since the Anglican Church denies the latter Ecumenical Councils (from the fourth on), they can not claim to maintain the entire Apostolic faith.

 

[RVincent]

(Mat 16:18) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.​

rock. Gr. petra. It is feminine, and therefore cannot agree with Peter. He was neither the fountain or the builder, but Christ alone whom he had confessed (1 Cor. 3:11). Petra is immovable: Messiah, as being "the Son of the Living God", Who is the foretold "fountain-stone" (Isa. 28:16); and the rejected stone (Psa. 118:22).

(Mat 16:19) And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.​

Peter execised this power in Acts 2 in Israel, and Acts 10 among the Gentiles. Not the "Church" of the mystery (Eph. 3).

This power was given to the others (Matt. 18:8. John 20:23), and exercised in Acts 5:1-11, 12-16.

Whatever authority is implied, no power was given to communicate it to others, or to them in perpetuity. Binding and loosing is a Hebrew idiom for exercising authority. To bind = to declare what shall be binding (eg laws and precepts) and what shall not be binding.

 

[Polycarp1]

As an Episcopalian, I have to say, yes, we can, and we do. Leo XIII's Bull to one side (and yes, I know it was an "Apostolic Script" and the origins of the term "papal bull" -- but you'll forgive me if this once I use the term as descriptive) -- if that document be considered to be accurate, then the Roman Catholic Church itself lost its Apostolic status by failing to carry out the porrectio instrumentum for several hundred years. It quotes off the despicable "Nag's Head Fable," a slander which suggests that a sincere and devout bishop of the church participated in a mock consecration in a tavern. And, of course, it also ignores the entire fact of apostolic tradition having been carried through several other lines to the present, focusing on Matthew Parker.

Philip, I notice that you do not denounce the Oriental Orthodox in your forum as having "false bishops" even though they go one Ecumenical Council back from us.

Bottom line: The churches which insist on denying the validity of something precious to us to advance their own agendas are being "dogs in the manger" -- and it's a greater sin when you consider whose Manger they're being dogs in.

 

[Philip]

Philip, I notice that you do not denounce the Oriental Orthodox in your forum as having "false bishops" even though they go one Ecumenical Council back from us.

I accept the teachings of my bishop on this matter: The Oriental Orthodox (at least the Coptic and Ethiopians) are not monophysts. They accussations against them are the result of poor communication and translation. Any confirmed Oriental Orthodox who confesses the Symbol of Faith is welcome in the Orthodox Church.

You will note that the OO do accept the teachings of the latter councils even though they were not present for those councils. For example, the OO invoke the Saints and venerate their icons. The Anglican Church, on the other hand, has this to say: "adoration (both of images and of relics), and the invocation of saints is a futile thing foolishly conceived and grounded on no evidence of Scripture. On the contrary this teaching is repugnant to the Word of God. (22nd of the 39 Articles)"

 

[billwald]

My question is simple - can the Anglican Church maintain their claim to apostolic succession?

Yes. There was a Christian Church in England before the Roman Church broke away from the Orthodox Church. If so, the claim of the COE has nothing to do with the Roman Church at all.

 

[Philip]

Yes. There was a Christian Church in England before the Roman Church broke away from the Orthodox Church.

This is quite true. However, the Church of England remained in communion with Rome, not the other Patriarchs for 500 years. The doctrines of the CoE, especially those surrounding justification and sanctification, are derived from Western, not Eastern, doctrines. Other Roman teachings such as the filioque also show the CoE to have been part of the Church of Rome.

If so, the claim of the COE has nothing to do with the Roman Church at all.

See my statements above. Even if the CoE had separated itself from Rome and remained with the Orthodox Churches 1000 years ago, the adoption of the 39 Articles clearly separates the CoE from Orthodoxy.

 

[Borealis]

(Mat 16:18) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.​

Great, more tags...alright, let's dissect this old chestnut, shall we?

rock. Gr. petra. It is feminine, and therefore cannot agree with Peter. He was neither the fountain or the builder, but Christ alone whom he had confessed (1 Cor. 3:11). Petra is immovable: Messiah, as being "the Son of the Living God", Who is the foretold "fountain-stone" (Isa. 28:16); and the rejected stone (Psa. 118:22).

Yep, 'petra' is Greek for 'rock.' And Jesus called Simon 'Petros.' No, wait a minute...Petros is a Greek word. Jesus didn't speak Greek, he spoke Aramaic. Therefore, he could not have called Simon 'Petros.' Let's take a look at the Aramaic word for rock: "Kephas." So let's look at that verse again, shall we? This is a literal translation of the Aramaic, found at this website (this site is definitely not Catholic; check his opinion on Mel Gibson's movie): http://www.v-a.com/bible/matthew-16.html

"I am also telling you that you are the Rock [Peter] and on this rock I am building my Church, and the doors of sheol cannot draw it in."

Don't believe me? Check out bible translations in other languages. For example, French:

"Et moi, je te dis que tu es Pierre, et que sur cette pierre je bâtirai mon Église, et que les portes du séjour des morts ne prévaudront point contre elle."

How about Spanish?

"Por eso te llamaré Pedro, que quiere decir "piedra". Sobre esta piedra construiré mi iglesia, y la muerte no podrá destruirla."

Would you prefer Swedish?

"Du är Petrus, en klippa, och på den klippan kommer jag att bygga min församling. Inte ens helvetets makter ska kunna besegra den."

Now, you could certainly pull up some translations that don't use the same word in both places; I found some while looking for the three translations above. But that's not the point, is it? Jesus Christ didn't speak English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Swedish, Russian, Chinese, Swahili, Greek, Latin, Phoenician, Egyptian, Arabic, or any of those languages. He spoke in Aramaic, and in Aramaic there is one word, Kephas, used in that passage. Simon Peter was the Rock on which Christ vowed to build His Church. Deal with it.

(Mat 16:19) And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.​

Whatever authority is implied, no power was given to communicate it to others, or to them in perpetuity. Binding and loosing is a Hebrew idiom for exercising authority. To bind = to declare what shall be binding (eg laws and precepts) and what shall not be binding.

So, what you're saying, then, is that Christ handed the keys to Peter and said, "Hang on to these for me, but when they nail you upside down on that tree outside Rome, I want them back." Is that about the size of it? If Christ did not intend for Peter to pass on his authority as the head of the Church, then why bother establishing the Church to begin with?

The authority isn't implied; it's explicit. Christ handed the keys of heaven to Peter and told him to lead the Church. "Feed my sheep." Three times, remember? So after Peter is gone, the sheep starve? Christ said he wouldn't be back until the last days, and he left Peter and the Apostles in charge of His Church until that time. The Church won't fall, remember? If there's no one to watch over it, what's to stop Satan from tearing it down? Christ said he'd always be there for us, yes. But he delegated his authority, and made it very clear that that authority was to stay among men, guided by the Holy Spirit. That's the Church, and the Magisterium.

What's the first thing Peter did after Christ ascended into heaven? He appointed a successor to Judas Iscariot. He passed on authority. Check out Acts 6:5-6, where "they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy SPirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them. (Me: That's called 'ordination.')

Laying on hands was the customary Jewish way of designating persons for a task and invoking upon them the divine blessing and power to do it. It's known in the Catholic Church as 'Holy Orders,' or ordination.

How about Paul? He was ordained before he began his ministry. A disciple named Ananias did it; you can read about it in Acts 9:17-19.

I could go on, but I've got to get some sleep. I trust my point has been sufficiently proven.

 

[christian-only]

It's known in the Catholic Church as 'Holy Orders,' or ordination.

How about Paul? He was ordained before he began his ministry. A disciple named Ananias did it; you can read about it in Acts 9:17-19.

I could go on, but I've got to get some sleep. I trust my point has been sufficiently proven.

So, you are saying that a "regular" Christian ordained Paul to be an apostle, therefore, a regular Christian can confer 'Holy Orders' and make whomever he chooses into a clergyman? Doesn't sound like Catholic doctrine to me, and it certainly isn't Biblical doctrine! In Galatians 1:1, Paul says "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead"

 

[Borealis]

So, you are saying that a "regular" Christian ordained Paul to be an apostle, therefore, a regular Christian can confer 'Holy Orders' and make whomever he chooses into a clergyman? Doesn't sound like Catholic doctrine to me, and it certainly isn't Biblical doctrine! In Galatians 1:1, Paul says "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead"

Ananias was a bishop of the Church, not a 'regular' Christian. And yes, Paul was an apostle by Jesus Christ. However, he was not a leader of the Church immediately upon his conversion; he had to be ordained, by a Church leader, before he began his ministry.

Obviously, I couldn't ordain someone into a clergyman; to imply that I'm saying that is to deliberately misinterpret my words, or to ignore historical fact. And don't bother with the 'it's not in the Bible' line about Ananias; Catholicism involves more than the seventy-three books of the Bible. It also involves the history of the Church, not all of which is included in the Bible.

 

[aanjt]

My question is simple - can the Anglican Church maintain their claim to apostolic succession? I know far too little about the topic to be able to contribute, but i have been informed that the Roman Catholic church claims that the line of Apostolic succession has been broken in the Anglican church. Has this been substantiated?

What I would suggest is for you to go and talk with your priest about this. It is better to ask a priest of the church about issues such as this than to ask those about our church's standing on issues from other church's.

Yours in Christ,
Jen

 

[nikephoros_spatharios]

Apostolic succession is not just a chain of ordinations, but participation in the whole revealed truth as handed in unbroken line from the Apostles.

If a bishop ordains another, who then goes and founds his own church and removes or adds to the truth handed down by the Church from the Apostles, then the new church has no claim to Apostolic succession.

Protestants and Roman Catholics do not have apostolic succession, because the former have taken away from the fullness of the Truth and the latter have added man-made heresies (IMHO) to the Truth.

The Oriental Orthodox have apostolic succession inasmuch as they have the right belief. It is right belief, not ratifying the acts of this or that council which is a mark of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[PaladinValer]

Since the Anglican Church denies the latter Ecumenical Councils (from the fourth on), they can not claim to maintain the entire Apostolic faith.

That's simply false. The Anglican Church accepts and confirms all the Ecumenical Councils as authoritative. You are mistaking us for the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

The Anglican Church, on the other hand, has this to say: "adoration (both of images and of relics), and the invocation of saints is a futile thing foolishly conceived and grounded on no evidence of Scripture. On the contrary this teaching is repugnant to the Word of God. (22nd of the 39 Articles)"

The 39 Articles of Religion no longer necessarily hold weight in the Anglican Church.

We affirm to all the Creeds. We believe in the Communion of the Saints. We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Philip]

That's simply false. The Anglican Church accepts and confirms all the Ecumenical Councils as authoritative.

Can you point me to an authoritative statement from the Church to that effect?

The 39 Articles of Religion no longer necessarily hold weight in the Anglican Church.

The Canons of the Church of England:

A2: The Thirty-Nine Articles are agreeable to the Word of God and may be assented unto with a good conscience by all members of the Church of England.

A5: The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.​

The laws of the CoE explicitly state that the 39 Articles summarize Anglican doctrine. The 22nd of these articles contradicts the 7th Council.

I have not been able to locate the canons of the Episcopal Church.

 

[Philip]

Paladin,

This article, written by the Bishop of Salisbury and approved by the Archbishop of Cantebury, states that the clergy of the Anglican Church must assent in writing to the 39 Articles. As part of their ordination, they must agree not to teach anything against the Articles. Should we not conclude from this that the clergy is forbidden to teach that the veneration of relics and icons is acceptable?

The article goes on to state that it does not find the Seventh Council to be binding on the Anglican Church.

I would like to believe that the Anglican Church accepts the Seventh Council, but her documents seem to testify to the contrary.

 

[PaladinValer]

The Anglican Church has evolved quite a bit since the date of that article, 1900. Our Church used to have some heavy Calvinistic tendancies but it, today, no longer does, to give one example.

The 39 Articles of Religion were originally written to establish the original foundations of our Church. The article in question was written under false implications of Catholic doctrine of "statue-worship." I should note that we Anglicans/Episcopalians firmly uphold the Communion of Saints, celibrate All Saints and All Souls Day, pray for the dead, and deeply revere the saints; just look in the Book of Common Prayer.

It was during the time of Calvinist-influence that the radicals wanted to remove many of our sacred Christian traditions from the Church. They succeeded for a short period of time but there was always heavy opposition to their "reforms." It was during this time that the 39 Articles of Religion were a mainstay in the Church.

If you were to talk to an Anglican priest today, he or she would tell you (as I was taught in my Confirmation classes only recently) that we fully believe in the Communion of Saints. The rector of my parish himself has icons of pious Christian saints in his office. During baptisms, we all reaffirm our vows which are word-for-word the Apostle's Creed.

We are all bound to all the Seven Ecumenical Councils if we (Anglican/Episcopalian, Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, etc) are to call ourselves truly historic, truly orthodox, and truly traditional Christians. I hold this very dearly in my heart and would not join a church that rejects the decisions of Church Fathers inspired by the Holy Spirit to establish orthodoxy. I fully reject iconoclasism and I've had to admonish some of my own friends who cannot seem to get it in their heads that we, like you Orthodox and the Catholics, do not worship Mary or the Saints.

I highly urge you to look more into the history of the AC. In the beginning, we simply broke from Rome. We had to deal with our own iconoclasts but we eventually have prevaild against this ancient heresy. I would admonish any of my Anglican/Episcopalian brothers or sisters if they were to begin preaching this heresy.

 

[Philip]

Paladin,

Can you address the canons I mentioned above (from 1970)?

A2: The Thirty-Nine Articles are agreeable to the Word of God and may be assented unto with a good conscience by all members of the Church of England.

A5: The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.​

They seem to maintain the Articles as a valid summary of Anglican doctrine.

Also, are clergy still required to assent in writing to the Articles? Has this requirement been removed?

 

[PaladinValer]

I'm certain that the interpretation of that particular Article has changed. Remember that originally, the Anglican leaders thought Catholics were saint-worshippers and idolaters. Today, shame on any Anglican/Episcopalian who thinks that!

I should also remind you that the Article's actual message is about the existance of Purgatory. Traditionally, we don't acknowledge (as you also don't acknowledge) the Catholic understanding of Purgatory. This is really what the Article is addressing.

As such, I can reasonably assume that the Article is now interpreted not as pro-iconoclasm but rather as simply one of rejection of the doctrine of Purgatory. My parish priest is soon to go on a pilgrimage to Ireland and perhaps England to study Celtic Christian spirituality. I'm certain he will see statues and icon of saints in the local churches and cathedrals.

In addition, don't forget that those Articles establish a more Calvinistic form of worship. Today, I wouldn't be surprised if most ordained clergy taught that both faith and works, like you Orthodox and the Catholics, are required for salvation, if not faith-alone and rejection of TULIP. It simply is that the Articles are of a bygone era that have either been reinterpreted or left as a testimony of Anglican history.

 

[Spear Man]

Yes. There was a Christian Church in England before the Roman Church broke away from the Orthodox Church. If so, the claim of the COE has nothing to do with the Roman Church at all.

My question is...in what year do you say the "Roman Church" broke away from the Orthodox Church?? I think you got this reversed....

 

[nikephoros_spatharios]

My question is...in what year do you say the "Roman Church" broke away from the Orthodox Church?? I think you got this reversed....

The Bishop of Rome has been in schism with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church for approximately one thousand years.