Apostolic succession

[HisHomeMaker]

I have been attending and Anglican Church of Canada for 10 years. I am trying to get my head around what makes me and my church "Anglican" versus "just Christian". I *think* -- MJK? -- that my church believes in apostolic succession, but I am not certain of what that means to me as a member and worshiper? What sets us apart? How do others differ? What authority do my leaders -- Bishops? -- have that is God-given and/or infallible?

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I have been attending and Anglican Church of Canada for 10 years. I am trying to get my head around what makes me and my church "Anglican" versus "just Christian". I *think* -- MJK? -- that my church believes in apostolic succession, but I am not certain of what that means to me as a member and worshiper? What sets us apart? How do others differ? What authority do my leaders -- Bishops? -- have that is God-given and/or infallible?

This is a very good question.

I am a very pragmatic person, and to me having apostolic succession means that we have a bishop who is the pastoral leader of all the Anglican churches in my diocese. The difference between being a congregational church and being part of a diocesan system means that we can share resources. We can ensure a robust system of training clergy and other people in leadership positions in our churches. We can maintain certain standards.

If I am perfectly honest, it doesn't make a difference to me that my bishop had three sets of hands laid on him by bishops who had three sets of hands laid on them, etc.

It might give me a warm fuzzy feeling and tempt me to feel superior to our brothers and sisters in Christ who can't claim this. Of course, this is a very sinful thought given that I had absolutely no responsibility for this apostolic succession, and that we are a mere part of the Body of Christ.

 

[MKJ]

I have been attending and Anglican Church of Canada for 10 years. I am trying to get my head around what makes me and my church "Anglican" versus "just Christian". I *think* -- MJK? -- that my church believes in apostolic succession, but I am not certain of what that means to me as a member and worshiper? What sets us apart? How do others differ? What authority do my leaders -- Bishops? -- have that is God-given and/or infallible?

Apostolic sucession means that we can trace our leaders - the Bishops - back through a line of bishops back to the apostles. We believe that Christ ordained the apostles as leaders in the Church, giving them an indeleble mark that makes them a bishop. They transferred this authority to their successors by laying on of hands. It is by being in communion with the Bishop that we are in communion with the Church: as Ignasius said, where the bishop is, there is the Church.

 

[wayseer]

We cannot trace any 'line' of Bishops back to Peter or any other disciple of Jesus for that matter.

Despite what the church in Rome might say there is no traceable lineage. The 'lineage' was an invention, at a convenient time, by Rome to support its claim for absolute authority over all bishops which, along with the Filioque clause, served to justify Rome's claim and served to underpin the split between the Western and Eastern Churches.

Having said that, it is true that we have a 'tradition' of Apostolic succession. In other words, what is taught today is in the 'tradition' of the Apostles.

 

[Adam Warlock]

sigh

 

[R_A]

We cannot trace any 'line' of Bishops back to Peter or any other disciple of Jesus for that matter.

Why not?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I'll raise your sight and add a grumble......

sigh

 

[HisHomeMaker]

...Christ ordained the apostles as leaders in the Church, giving them an indeleble mark that makes them a bishop. They transferred this authority to their successors by laying on of hands.

Is this in scripture? Can you point me to where?

I hear the sighs and grumbles but I don't understand them. I don't want to start a fight, but could someone please educate me?

 

[Borromeo]

This is a very good question.

I am a very pragmatic person, and to me having apostolic succession means that we have a bishop who is the pastoral leader of all the Anglican churches in my diocese. The difference between being a congregational church and being part of a diocesan system means that we can share resources. We can ensure a robust system of training clergy and other people in leadership positions in our churches. We can maintain certain standards.

If I am perfectly honest, it doesn't make a difference to me that my bishop had three sets of hands laid on him by bishops who had three sets of hands laid on them, etc.

It might give me a warm fuzzy feeling and tempt me to feel superior to our brothers and sisters in Christ who can't claim this. Of course, this is a very sinful thought given that I had absolutely no responsibility for this apostolic succession, and that we are a mere part of the Body of Christ.

The point of it isn't pride, it is about legitimate transmission of the priestly office, teaching and authority.

 

[Borromeo]

We cannot trace any 'line' of Bishops back to Peter or any other disciple of Jesus for that matter.

Despite what the church in Rome might say there is no traceable lineage. The 'lineage' was an invention, at a convenient time, by Rome to support its claim for absolute authority over all bishops which, along with the Filioque clause, served to justify Rome's claim and served to underpin the split between the Western and Eastern Churches.

This isn't true, the Apostolic Sees of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople also have records of their lineages going straight back to their foundations. Its not just a "Rome" thing.

St Irenaeus was able to easily refute many gnostic sects by pointing out that the Bishops of different cities and their authority was known from the beginning and was public knowledge but when you got to gnostics who claimed to be Bishops, people who know the Apostles and their disciples were unanimous that they had never heard of them. Which they would, since such things are matters of public knowledge.

If you know Peter or Andrew and live with him day by day, and twenty years later Antipas comes along and claims to have been ordained by him yet you - and no one in the congregation has ever heard of him or witnessed it, would you believe it? Likewise, do you really think people were not aware of their Bishops and remembered who they were?

 

[Adam Warlock]

Is this in scripture? Can you point me to where?

I hear the sighs and grumbles but I don't understand them. I don't want to start a fight, but could someone please educate me?

One place to look would be 1 Timothy 4, contrasting false teachers with Timothy (who had received a gift through the laying on of hands).

 

[wayseer]

Why not?

Because there is no line.

 

[wayseer]

This isn't true, the Apostolic Sees of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople also have records of their lineages going straight back to their foundations. Its not just a "Rome" thing.

St Irenaeus was able to easily refute many gnostic sects by pointing out that the Bishops of different cities and their authority was known from the beginning and was public knowledge but when you got to gnostics who claimed to be Bishops, people who know the Apostles and their disciples were unanimous that they had never heard of them. Which they would, since such things are matters of public knowledge.

If you know Peter or Andrew and live with him day by day, and twenty years later Antipas comes along and claims to have been ordained by him yet you - and no one in the congregation has ever heard of him or witnessed it, would you believe it? Likewise, do you really think people were not aware of their Bishops and remembered who they were?

It is we who think we are so full of knowledge that are unaware.

Read the Didache.

Alternative, please show me the line stretching back to the 11 Apostles.

The sighing and grumbling can continue but such does not alter the facts.

What we have is a 'tradition' of teaching stretching back to the Apostles.

Jesus did not start a church. He set us free from such institutions. The only reason men have invented a 'line of succession' is to use it to enforce their own assumed authority and induce others to remain imprisoned by their self-imposed 'line of succsession'.

 

[PaladinValer]

Wayseer, I see you've changed your icon.

Apostolic Succession is a mandatory part of Anglicanism. It is found in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and our historic doctrines and dogmas have defined it in the way that MKJ has suggested.

While it may be true that the lines become somewhat "blurry," we know that they do exist because the idea and the practice can be dated ridiculously early: at least to the early 2nd century. And that is when we actually have concrete evidence, not just indirect or vague ideas. It is reasonable to assume that the Apostles taught it and therefore, so would have Jesus, and we have traditional interpretations that suggest it which are, as I said, so old.

The idea that there are no lines is simply false.

If you wish to promulgate ideas that are absolutely contrary to Anglicanism, please take them elsewhere. Do not promote them here.

 

[R_A]

Jesus did not start a church.

"On you I will build my church"?

 

[JasonV]

Alternative, please show me the line stretching back to the 11 Apostles.

Which one? Here's one of the several in the Western church:

Antiochian - Jacobite Succession

Peter the Apostle 35 A.D.
Eyodius 44
Ignatius (Martyr) 68
Earon 107
Cornelius 137
Eados 142
Theophilus 157
Maximus 171
Seraphim 179
Asclepiades (Martyr) 189
Philip 210
Zebinus 219
Babylos (Martyr) 237
F'abius 250
Demeirius 251
Paul I 259
Domnus I 270
Timotheus 281
Cyrilus 291
Tyrantus 296
Vitalius 301
Philogonius 318
Eustachius 323
Paulinus 338
Philabianus 383
Evagrius 386
Phosporius 416
Alexander 418
John I 428
Theodotus 431
Domnus II 442
Maximus 450
Accacius 454
Martyrius 457
Peter II 464
Phiadius 500
Sergius 544
Domnus III 547
Anastasius 560
Gregory I 564
Paul II 567
Patra 571
Domnus IV 586
Julianus 591
Athanasius I 595
John II 636
Theodorus I 649
Severus 668
Athanasius II 684
Julianus II 687
Elias I 709
Athanasius III 724
Evanius I 740
Gervasius I 759
Joseph 790
Cyriacus 793
Dionsius I 818
John III 847
Ignatius II 877
Theodosius 887
Dinousius II 897
John IV 910
Evanius 922
John V 936
Evanius II 954
Dionysius 958
Abraham I 962
John VI 965
Athanasius IV 987
John VII 1004
Dionysius III 1032
Theodorus II 1042
Athanasius V 1058
John VII 1064
Basilius II 1074
Abdoone 1076
Dionysius V 1077
Evanius III 1080
Dionysius VI 1088
Athanasias VI 1091
John IX 1131
Athanasius VI 1139
Michael I (the Great) 1167
Athanasius VIII 1200
Michael II 1207
JohnX 1208
Ignatius III 1223
Dionysius VII 1253
John XI 1253
Ignatius IV 1264
Philanus 1283
Ignatius Baruhid 1293
Ignatius Ishmael 1333
Ignatius Basilius III 1366
Ignatius Abraham II 1382
Ignatius Basilius IV 1412
Ignatius Bahanam I 1415
Ignatius l~aIejih 1455
Ignatius John XII 1483
Ignatius Noah 1492
Ignatius Jesus I 1509
Ignatius Jacob I 1510
Ignatius David I 1519
Ignatius Abdullah 1520
Ignatius Naamathalak 1557
Ignatius David II 1576
Ignatius Philathus 1591
Ignatius Abdullah II 1597
Ignatius Cadhal 1598
Ignatius Simeon 1640
Ignatius Jesus II 1653
Ignatius A. Massiah I 1661
Ignatius Cabeed 1686
Ignatius Gervasius III 1687
Ignatius Gervasius IV 1708
Ignatius Siccarablak 1722
Ignatius Qervasius III 1746
Ignatius Gervasius IV 1768
Ignatius Mathias 1781
Ignatius Bahanam II 1810
Ignatius Jonas 1817
Ignatius Gervasius V 1818
Ignatius Elias II 1839
Ignatius Jacob II 1847
Ignatius Peter III 1872
Mar Paul Athanasius - 1877
Julius Alvarez - July 29, 1889
Joseph Rene Vilatte - June 5, 1892

The sighing and grumbling can continue but such does not alter the facts.

What facts? That you are biased against this teaching? That's pretty obvious.

What we have is a 'tradition' of teaching stretching back to the Apostles.

I had non-Christians in attandence at my ordaination, and they stated they could feel a divine presence at my ordination to the Priesthood. I'd say that trumps your "thinking".

Being ordained does not make me a better person, just that I have an indelible mark that allows me to transubstantiate the host, where those without it cannot.

Pax,

J+

 

[JasonV]

A couple of worthwhile websites to look over:

Apostolic Succession in the Roman Catholic Church

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: List of Popes

 

[HisHomeMaker]

I am not certain of what that means to me as a member and worshiper? What sets us apart? How do others differ? What authority do my leaders -- Bishops? -- have that is God-given and/or infallible?

One place to look would be 1 Timothy 4, contrasting false teachers with Timothy (who had received a gift through the laying on of hands).

This helps me. Thanks, Adam and MKJ.

Being ordained does not make me a better person, just that I have an indelible mark that allows me to transubstantiate the host, where those without it cannot.

Thank you, Father Jason.

Further reading in One, Catholic and Apostolic resulted in finding a footnote that "given the dates, the purity of the Scottish line, and the liturgical forms used in the Reformation and post-Reformation era, Scottish succession alone may be at least partially immune to the condemnation of Apostolicae Curae." "When James II arrived in France with Bishop John Gordon of the Scottish Episcopal Church, he was then received without reconsecration into the Roman church by the Bishop of Meaux at the request of the pope." (p. 213) So it may be that Anglicans that derive their succession from the Nonjuror Scottish line are not technically under Apostolicae Curae, including American Episcopalians.

This comes from the blog, AskThePriest.org: Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession

 

[MKJ]

We cannot trace any 'line' of Bishops back to Peter or any other disciple of Jesus for that matter.

Despite what the church in Rome might say there is no traceable lineage. The 'lineage' was an invention, at a convenient time, by Rome to support its claim for absolute authority over all bishops which, along with the Filioque clause, served to justify Rome's claim and served to underpin the split between the Western and Eastern Churches.

Having said that, it is true that we have a 'tradition' of Apostolic succession. In other words, what is taught today is in the 'tradition' of the Apostles.

Why would you say that. The East certainly doesn't make any claim like that. It has nothing to do with Rome vs the East.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

What we have is a 'tradition' of teaching stretching back to the Apostles.

I agree with this.