apostolic succession of continuing Anglican churches

before splitting off from the Anglican communion did the bishops of the continuing/realignment churches get consecrated as bishops.

 

Each particular jurisdiction has its own story for the apostolic succession. Common elements for the Continuing churches include retired bishop Albert Chambers and some combination of Old Catholic, Independent Catholic, or Orthodox involvement.

The realignment churches were typically founded by bishops who had already been serving Anglican Communion provinces. Sometimes African bishops were brought in to provide apostolic succession.

 

The realignment churches were typically founded by bishops who had already been serving Anglican Communion provinces. Sometimes African bishops were brought in to provide apostolic succession.[/QUOTE]

the bible says that the church is the foundation of the truth so although there was corruption in the medieval church i don't believe apostolic succession was lost.

 

Apostolic succession simply means that a bishop was consecrated by someone who was also already a valid bishop. The only way that could be possible is if this stretched back to the apostles; no “lay” ordinations like some Lutherans allow. Therefore corruption doesn’t nullify this chain of consecrations across history. You know that your bishop was consecrated by someone, who was, who was, who was, ultimately consecrated by St. John the Apostle himself, for instance. Being originally consecrated by St. John makes one a valid bishop. If he also then is morally straight, that makes him a good bishop.

 

I was having lunch with an old bishop, soon to be retired, earlier this week. This man had been originally a Lutheran deeply involved with ecumenical affairs around the world. He had met Pope Paul VI, the EP Athenagoras of Constantinople, Abp. of Canterbury Michael Ramsey, etc. He said the 1st good bishop he ever met was Fulton Sheen. He met Bp. Sheen in the very early 1960s. There were others but Sheen was the 1st. He also had some very disparaging things to say about ELCA bishops. When you sit with a man who is 86 and has taught at some of the top seminaries in the Midwest and been involved with some of the projects he participated in, hopefully you have the good sense to listen. I'd say the conversation broke down 85-15. I'm going to meet with him again.

 

that's my point

 

You should ask him if you could record it or take notes.

 

Let me see if I understand that correctly. Suppose that some wealthy family paid to have a family member consecrated as a priest, and then paid to have him consecrated as a bishop. As long as the consecrating bishop(s) in each case were themselves validly consecrated bishop(s) in apostolic succession, the new bishop is also valid and in apostolic succession, and he can consecrate others with validity. Is that right?

I hadn't thought about it quite that way before. Under such a scenario, it would be somewhat more difficult to envision a break in apostolic succession. Someone would have had to be consecrated by a person pretending to be a valid bishop (a self-appointed, self-anointed phony?) or something along those lines.

Although, I can imagine situations might arise in which priests were called by God to lands distant from any bishops, and with a substantial increase in the number of converts they might have found themselves in great need of appointing new leaders of churches. Such a person would have good intentions in consecrating them. What would God say about the validity of such consecrations? I wonder.

 

Eventually they would have to regularize those orders.

 

Basically right. Episcopacy is an office; one can only be put in the office by someone who’s previously authorized. And yeah, there can be impostors; like the boss hiring a new employee can be a prankster impostor, in which case the employee wasn’t really hired.

In such cases, the best scenario for the one going would be a missionary bishop himself. He could ordain all the clergy he needs, on the spot.

 

That's why in both the East and West the Church has the tradition of requiring three bishops to consecrate a new bishop. One might be invalid or an imposter but the chance that all three would have a defect in their orders is very unlikely.

 

they could always bring in bishops from else where

 

Your observations sort of run a coach and horses through the whole idea of the visible church being dependent upon a physical and literal apostolic 'succession' for its 'validity' as THE Apostolic church of Jesus Christ.

I think the idea of Apostolic succession is a nice idea, but it is completely impossible to prove in the case of any individual, and utterly inappropriate to be used as a measure of true discipleship within the 'invisible church' of Jesus Christ. Taken to it's limits it could even be as foolish a concept as Jewish genealogies 1 Tim.1:4 and Titus 3:9, were regarded by the Apostles themselves.
.

 

Nowadays, yes. But in the old days of foot travel (or a horse, camel, or donkey if one was well off), not so much.

 

True; for example, the Roman church claims apostolic succession all the way back to Peter, and look where it got them during the middle ages. It didn't guarantee sound doctrine or true discipleship.

 

I find something comforting in the notion of the Historic Episcopate, and the unbroken line of hands laid on all the way back to Jesus. It certainly speaks to the unity and catholicity of the Church. Sometimes of course we believe because of the Church, and sometimes we believe in spite of the Church. Either way, the Church survives as an enduring testimony to the love and forgiveness of God.

The foundation documents of the 16th century speak highly of the primitive church and sought any connection with that church. They had no intent to break with the notion of Apostolic Succession, whatever our brothers and sisters in faith across the Tiber may argue.

 

I took some notes. But his Archbishop had sent over a resume/biography ahead of the meeting. He sheepishly offered me the same text and then launched into the story of his career. I've never had such a resume cross my desk.

 

Is there a scripture verse that says Jesus laid his hands on the apostles to ordain them?

 

Sadly of course he did not have the Book of Common Prayer to refer to to get the correct form of the words either.

Jesus Appears to the Disciples John 20:19-23
When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’ When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’​