Apostolic Succession

[Daniel9v9]

I was reminded of Apostolic Succession via some other discussions (one of which compares the Lutheran and the Anglican church, which is pretty interesting), and as far as I understand, some branches of Lutheranism hold to a form of Apostolic Succession; at least I think they do in Scandinavia. Anglicans appear a bit divided on it.

Practically speaking, our Catholic and Orthodox friends see Apostolic Succession as a necessity, partly because of their sacrificial understanding of Mass, which again is very tied into their idea of priesthood and really their entire doctrinal system.

However, Lutherans do not hold to a sacrificial Mass, but a sacrament given for us. (The Defense of the Augsburg Confession: Article XXIV (XII): Of the Mass.)
Nonetheless, what are your thoughts on Apostolic Succession?



As a quick disclaimer, I hold to the Concords that say:
"But since by divine authority the grades of bishop and pastor are not diverse, it is manifest that ordination administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine law [if a pastor in his own church ordains certain suitable persons to the ministry, such ordination is, according to divine law, undoubtedly effective and right]."
- A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope: 65

and:
"If ordination be understood in this way, neither will we refuse to call the imposition of hands a sacrament. For the Church has the command to appoint ministers, which should be most pleasing to us, because we know that God approves this ministry, and is present in the ministry [that God will preach and work through men and those who have been chosen by men]"
- The Defense of the Augsburg Confession: 12

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was reminded of Apostolic Succession via some other discussions (one of which compares the Lutheran and the Anglican church, which is pretty interesting), and as far as I understand, some branches of Lutheranism hold to a form of Apostolic Succession; at least I think they do in Scandinavia. Anglicans appear a bit divided on it.

Practically speaking, our Catholic and Orthodox friends see Apostolic Succession as a necessity, partly because of their sacrificial understanding of Mass, which again is very tied into their idea of priesthood and really their entire doctrinal system.

However, Lutherans do not hold to a sacrificial Mass, but a sacrament given for us. (The Defense of the Augsburg Confession: Article XXIV (XII): Of the Mass.)
Nonetheless, what are your thoughts on Apostolic Succession?

As a quick disclaimer, I hold to the Concords that say:
"But since by divine authority the grades of bishop and pastor are not diverse, it is manifest that ordination administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine law [if a pastor in his own church ordains certain suitable persons to the ministry, such ordination is, according to divine law, undoubtedly effective and right]."
- A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope: 65

and:
"If ordination be understood in this way, neither will we refuse to call the imposition of hands a sacrament. For the Church has the command to appoint ministers, which should be most pleasing to us, because we know that God approves this ministry, and is present in the ministry [that God will preach and work through men and those who have been chosen by men]"
- The Defense of the Augsburg Confession: 12

It was the fact that the bishops of the ancient Church could be traced back to the apostles which (among many other things) gave the orthodox position far more credibility than those who argued in favor of secret teachings (the Gnostics). Apostolic Succession is a fact of the history of the Church; though I don't believe it is necessary for the validity of the office of the keys. I believe that it is, historically, been of benefit and for good order in the Church; but it is not what makes the Church the Church, or the pastoral office valid. *By the same token, Apostolic Succession does not guarantee the proper use of the office of the keys; for example the bishop of Rome does sit in the chair of St. Peter, but that does not excuse the abuses of the papacy.

*edited to add

-CryptoLutheran

 

[rocknanchor]

I was reminded of Apostolic Succession via some other discussions (one of which compares the Lutheran and the Anglican church, which is pretty interesting), and as far as I understand, some branches of Lutheranism hold to a form of Apostolic Succession; at least I think they do in Scandinavia. Anglicans appear a bit divided on it.

Practically speaking, our Catholic and Orthodox friends see Apostolic Succession as a necessity, partly because of their sacrificial understanding of Mass, which again is very tied into their idea of priesthood and really their entire doctrinal system.

However, Lutherans do not hold to a sacrificial Mass, but a sacrament given for us. (The Defense of the Augsburg Confession: Article XXIV (XII): Of the Mass.)
Nonetheless, what are your thoughts on Apostolic Succession?



As a quick disclaimer, I hold to the Concords that say:
"But since by divine authority the grades of bishop and pastor are not diverse, it is manifest that ordination administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine law [if a pastor in his own church ordains certain suitable persons to the ministry, such ordination is, according to divine law, undoubtedly effective and right]."
- A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope: 65

and:
"If ordination be understood in this way, neither will we refuse to call the imposition of hands a sacrament. For the Church has the command to appoint ministers, which should be most pleasing to us, because we know that God approves this ministry, and is present in the ministry [that God will preach and work through men and those who have been chosen by men]"
- The Defense of the Augsburg Confession: 12

IMO, I frankly don’t think there remains any way to determine beyond the shadow of a doubt, that we have eradicated the fullest effect stemming from the call-out,

“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.”
(Acts 20:29)

I know they are confident we have to reclaim the tradition and reputation of said succession, counting them off one-by-one and detailing the events, but detailing events doesn’t suppress the effect uniformly, whatever that call-out was over. That is why I am more confident with the older succession, the ancient dealings of the Holy Spirit to man,

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, , “
(Acts 15:28)

 

[Kalevalatar]

I think it's good and useful for Church order and episcopal oversight. Personally, I find it quite a powerful reminder of our One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church when bishops from all over the world participate in the laying on of hands for the ordination and consecration of our local bishops.

 

[AMM]

Pastor Heath Curtis wrote this, “Why The Apostolic Succession Debate Matters,” by the Rev. Heath R. Curtis

I believe we have apostolic succession because the distinction between episkopos and presbyteros seem to be man-made, and we have always practiced the laying on of hands when we confer the priesthood to ministers. In this way, we did not deviate from historic practice and can trace our pastors with an "unbroken chain back to the apostles" as Rome claims. Additionally, because of our recognition that the "powers" so to speak of the bishopric and the priesthood are the same, it's more accurate to say that we abolished the office of presbyter, not the office of bishop. Thus (again) we have preserved apostolic succession.

However, I do fully support the usage of an episcopal hierarchy in the Lutheran churches. As various Confessional documents state -- it was designed and established by the early church with the best intentions, and this was followed for centuries (with slight variation, as we point out when we cite Jerome) before it began to be abandoned. It's a very good practice and I believe for the sake of catholicity we should follow the ecumenical canons, not out of necessity but out of good confession.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Pastor Heath Curtis wrote this, “Why The Apostolic Succession Debate Matters,” by the Rev. Heath R. Curtis

I believe we have apostolic succession because the distinction between episkopos and presbyteros seem to be man-made, and we have always practiced the laying on of hands when we confer the priesthood to ministers. In this way, we did not deviate from historic practice and can trace our pastors with an "unbroken chain back to the apostles" as Rome claims. Additionally, because of our recognition that the "powers" so to speak of the bishopric and the priesthood are the same, it's more accurate to say that we abolished the office of presbyter, not the office of bishop. Thus (again) we have preserved apostolic succession.

However, I do fully support the usage of an episcopal hierarchy in the Lutheran churches. As various Confessional documents state -- it was designed and established by the early church with the best intentions, and this was followed for centuries (with slight variation, as we point out when we cite Jerome) before it began to be abandoned. It's a very good practice and I believe for the sake of catholicity we should follow the ecumenical canons, not out of necessity but out of good confession.

Thank you for the link - I'll check it out!

 

[FireDragon76]

Episcopalianism is a matter of good order but not the essence of the Church. Even a church with "bad order" is a still a church.

If a bunch of Christians crashed on a desert island, and one of them felt called to lead the group as their pastor or pastors, then it is up to that group of Christians to ordain him. That is my pastors understanding of succession- apostolicity is held in the Church as a whole expounding the Scriptures. The ministry is not a matter of magic mist being handed down from the apostles, Lutherans do not believe that.

I really don't think it has to do with a sacrificial understanding of the Mass (that's just 16th century polemics, frankly). Catholics and Orthodox also emphasize the teaching office of the bishop, and the apostolic authority he represents to them, in understanding the nature of the Church. They have alot of faith invested in the office of the bishop, whereas Lutherans emphasize the need for vigilance in reforming structures that do not serve the Gospel.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Pastor Heath Curtis wrote this, “Why The Apostolic Succession Debate Matters,” by the Rev. Heath R. Curtis

I believe we have apostolic succession because the distinction between episkopos and presbyteros seem to be man-made, and we have always practiced the laying on of hands when we confer the priesthood to ministers. In this way, we did not deviate from historic practice and can trace our pastors with an "unbroken chain back to the apostles" as Rome claims. Additionally, because of our recognition that the "powers" so to speak of the bishopric and the priesthood are the same, it's more accurate to say that we abolished the office of presbyter, not the office of bishop. Thus (again) we have preserved apostolic succession.

However, I do fully support the usage of an episcopal hierarchy in the Lutheran churches. As various Confessional documents state -- it was designed and established by the early church with the best intentions, and this was followed for centuries (with slight variation, as we point out when we cite Jerome) before it began to be abandoned. It's a very good practice and I believe for the sake of catholicity we should follow the ecumenical canons, not out of necessity but out of good confession.

A bit late, but I finally got around to read the article. It's comprehensive and thought provoking for sure, and the comments also raise some good points. Overall it's a very balanced answer. Thank you again

 

[Moses Medina]

Very well written, I loved it.