Apostolic Succession

[Michaeles]

Do Eastern Orthodox consider Anglicans (and many Lutherans) to have valid AS? Why or why not?

I've had a difficult time trying to find out about this, so I'd really appreciate it if you guys could help me out.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You're having a difficult time finding this out because the Orthodox Church has not and will not make a unified definitive statement of "validity." Even the term "valid" isn't a favorite vocabular word of Orthodox bishops and patriarchs. The old addage in Orthodoxy is "we know where grace is, not where it is not." So the short answer is, nobody knows.....

My priest has told me on several occasions that he feels the Catholic Church has solid apostolic succession and grace-giving sacraments. He told me that my baptism, marriage, confessions, and spiritual time there were all significant, viable, and meaningful. But they lack that fullness.

Being Orthodox is about "right teaching," not just looking at the sacraments as "legit" or phony.

The Catholic Church put the kybosh on the Anglicans in Apostlicae Curae in the late 1800's with Pope Leo XIII. The CC likes to declare who is valid and invalid. The Orthodox focuses inward to what they know as sure as the sun rises. And we know without a shadow of a doubt that the bishops of our Church have valid succession.

Succession is not terribly important if wrong teaching accompanies it. And if you look at the "Old Catholic Church" and the Episcopal Church, they might very well have valid lines of apostolicity, but look at the terribly un-Orthodox, sinful, horrible teachings they regarding sexuality, gays, abortion, marriage, non-Christian salvation, synchretism, women's ordination, and a bunch of other things. Being the Church means right teaching, right faith, apostolic succession, the seven sacraments, and unity in oneness. Orthodoxy has all those things....

 

[Macarius]

Do Eastern Orthodox consider Anglicans (and many Lutherans) to have valid AS? Why or why not?

I've had a difficult time trying to find out about this, so I'd really appreciate it if you guys could help me out.

We don't know. God does. We have faith in Him.

Apostolic Succession is an interesting doctrine for us; it doesn't carry any sense of doctrinal infallibility (even for bishops meeting in council). It does point to the fact that what we hear preached in the Church is the same as what has been preached down the ages. We know that because we can look at the writings left by each generation, and can see the institutional lineage (there's apostolic succession) showing that, as far back as the apostles, we've been here and been preaching the same thing.

At two major points in history, despite also preaching the core of the Gospel, other communities decided they could no longer remain in communion with us. Generally, this was due to a non-negotiable fundamentalism on a particular point (with a host of other, smaller issues playing into it): in the case of the OO, the issue was what one might call "Cyrillian fundamentalism" (a refusal to allow any description of the Incarnation other than St. Cyril of Alexandria's); in the case of the RCC, the issue was "Papal fundamentalism" (a refusal to allow any local principle of church organization other than papal centralism).

Having broken communion with the Orthodox Church, while maintaining the primary Gospel of Christ-God-crucified-and-risen, we are not able to say what validity they have. It is best for us not to judge.

 

[Soderquj]

Apostolic Succession is both tracing your hierarchy all the way back to the Appostles and correct/truth unchanging doctrine (I am not talking about expression). Both of these can be determined, you decide.

As stated above we know where God is, we do not know where he is not!

 

[ArmyMatt]

Apostolic succession not only means that one can historically trace one's line of bishops to the Apostles, but that the teaching has remained consistent, so we also must teach what the Apostles taught. so if you were to look and see what the teaching of Christians was in the early centuries, you will be able to see who changed what and when.

but, as Macarius said, it is up to God to judge.

 

[buzuxi02]

As others have said there is no apostolic succession without right belief and praxis. But even the laying on of hands does not neccesarily mean grace has passed on to an episcopal candidate. There are canonical rules to be followed.

First you need 2 or more bishops to participate. The ordination cant be done in secre., You cannot ordain a bishop outside your synod unless invited t,. (and permission is granted by your own synod) etc etc. Eikonomia can be granted for extreme circumstances

 

[Shane R]

This has been very interesting and informative. Most of my religious past has either rejected or minimized apostolic succession. Some of the explanations here have dispelled the myths propagated in the fellowships I used to belong to.