I suppose the issue of Apostolic Succession might be a vexed question. Is there any real answer to it? The claim itself seems rather ridiculous. There are men saying they have a direct spiritual genealogy to the Apostles, by laying-on-of-hands, for 2000 years; yet, I guarantee you won't find one bishop who can show records of his predecessors' consecrations as far back as, say, AD 800? How are we supposed to believe them valid if they aren't even able to prove it? I find it hard believe this was something initiated by Christ. Why would God, so majestic & true, institute such a frail plan: reliant on lying men, who can easily forge ancient documents, to carry on the valid presence of His very own Body and Blood? Before you know it you're eating a stale bit of bread because a certain consecration never occurred. It seems more secure & reliable that Apostolic Succession is passing on of right belief, rather than proper ceremony. "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." - Acts 2:4 Isn't this "public show vs. inner heart" conflict precisely the point our Lord Jesus got to, against the Pharisees? Any really good arguments for the physical apostolic succession from the Fathers or Anglican Divines would be much appreciated. I am anxious to lay this to rest in my conscience.