What is the Anglican view of apostolic succession? Is it like the EO and RC? Do you guys think it’s based on scripture ? I want to go to an Anglican Church but frankly I don’t see the proof that apostolic succession is a doctrine. Neither do I see the early church talking about apostolic succession as a doctrine. I don’t see why you need to be a direct successor of the apostles so your order is valid and you can have a “real” Eucharist and whatnot. What is the Anglican take on this? Backed by Tradition but not scripture? I want to be convinced it’s true but I need to see it in the Bible somewhere and I just don’t see it. I don’t even see the whole thing about having a deacon priest and bishop. I only see deacon and priest. Not saying i disagree with that form of church gov, just that it can’t be a doctrine.
Our doctrine is formulated a little differently, because in the RC world, apostolic succession is tied in with an idea of Apostolic Tradition. The reason they care about succession, is they believe the successors of the apostles carry an unwritten tradition. That tradition, + scripture, is where they say they derive all of their doctrines from. That's what gives them the excuse of not having to base themselves only on Scripture. We on the other hand don't allow the concept of an apostolic tradition, because it makes no sense, has no objective content, and isn't in a valid mental concept. The only valid and legitimate basis for doctrine is Scripture. So in that sense, we aren't as hung up on apostolic succession as a (partial) source for our doctrines. On the other hand, we do have a principle, that one can only be ordained into clergy, by those who themselves are already validly ordained. It seems pretty simple, but it's not, because like, Baptists would say that even a lay person could ordain someone. We don't accept that notion of holy orders. Scripture clearly limits who can effect ordinations. Only Christ could have ordained the initial Twelve Apostles. Once Judas fell out, only the other 11 could ordain a replacement. Mary could not ordain people. Mary Magdalene couldn't ordain people. The Centurion couldn't ordain people, etc. So if you allow the concept that ordination is restricted to those who have it already; ("you can only give it if you first have it"), then it follows that for Person A to be ordained today, they could only go to someone who is already somehow ordained (person B). Namely when Person B was getting ordained, they got it from a Person C who first already had it. But that person C who gave it to them, first had to receive it from some Person D who already validly had it. And so on and so on, further and further back, until you get to the first people being ordained by the Twelve Apostles themselves. So to sum up, if you can't demonstrate that you were ordained by someone who had it already; and they got it from someone who had it already, all the way to the beginning; then that whole line is just of laymen, and hence you weren't actually ordained either. You have to trace your ordination back to the apostles, to be actually ordained into Christ's Church. That's our doctrine of apostolic succession.
I get the apostles could ordain people and then they told those people they could ordain people. But where is it in scripture that it’s an invalid ordination if you don’t get it from a valid source? All that I see is an appeal to order and preservation of doctrine. I have not seen a single Bible verse where any apostle says that you need to be ordained from someone who was ordained in order to be valid, and there are a few that talk about the character and reputation of who can be an elder and such. It makes sense to do apostolic succession to keep order, but it seems to me a human method rather than a divine institution by God. Do anglicans choose their priests? It’s apparent to me in the early church that the individual churches must have a say in who they get as a priest or else the ordination was considered void. They talked about “suffrage” of the church body. I’m not trying to disagree, I just have trouble seeing how it is a doctrine. It makes sense only the people appointed by Christ would take it upon themselves to ordain people. But did they do it because of doctrine or because of order? And when you say the orders are invalid, do you mean their Eucharist isn’t “real”? Like Lutherans for example? I have a hard time believing that God is bound by some sort of apostolic chain (not mention in the NT) and that he wouldn’t give the ministers power to consecrate the Eucharist or the Holy Spirit wouldn’t guide them to shepherd the church. if I’m to believe this, then the Roman and EO churches are somehow better than a Lutheran or Methodist or baptist church…. Which I don’t believe. the only Protestant with apostolic succession is the Anglican Church, and yet the RCC doesn’t recognize their orders. I’d rather not have to worry about “defending” Anglican orders because I have a hard time believing apostolic succession to be a doctrine anyways. Am I required to believe this to become an Anglican?
Its something that pertains to church order, yes, but that doesn’t make it a human institution. Its still divine, because ordination as a whole is a divine institution. Ordination in it’s root depends on God’s specific call to make that person into His minister to the people. To be ordained literally is to become God’s face to the people, which is why the standards for clergy are the highest of any person. In ACNA, those who had divorce in their past were not allowed to become bishops. A few years ago one bishop was seen to have porn, he was dismissed from the House of Bishops immediately. The reason we expect and demand this impossibly high standard from our clergy, is because they’re literally God’s ambassadors on earth. They speak the things he wants to say; they do the things he would like to have done. Since the clergy are more intimately tied to God expressing his will, the only way for someone to become God’s ambassador is for God first to Call the person. Now God’s calling can be immediate, or mediate. An immediate calling is when a person feels they’re directly called by God. A mediate calling is when God’s will is mediated, such as through his other already-existing ministers. Typically we do not trust people who claim an immediate calling, because there’s no way to verify it. These are the people who will do great missions, start new schools, build big projects, ie. everything that doesn’t require an ordination from the church. For the clergy, we normally have the mediate / mediated calling; God mediates his choice through the mechanisms of the Church. If some person A is a layman; they aren’t ordained right? What if they then proceed to ordain person B? Is that a valid ordination?
What I meant by this is “was this what Jesus told the apostles to do: apostolic succession is the only valid ordination period.” We’re never going to agree on this I guess lol. Can I just ask, do I have to believe in apostolic succession as a doctrine to be Anglican? Or is there more freedom to disagree on things? I’d hate for this to be the thing that keeps me from seeking membership, but for now I cannot assent to this doctrine. Also, do you believe Lutherans, for ex., are only eating bread and wine and not the body and blood of Christ? Just curious about the traditional Anglican perspective
But it is mentioned in the NT. Every succession of orders is extremely precise and dare I say, legalistic. You don’t see lay people ordaining folks willy-nilly right? Only those who previously had the authority are seen to communicate that authority to others. The same pattern is seen at large in the early Church. They’re not better. The baptist ministers often have a better grasp of the gospel, whereas the RC and EOs rarely communicate the gospel; typically their gospel is, “join our church and you’ll be saved”. So in that comparison, the baptists would have the gospel but not the orders, while the RC/EOs would have the orders but not the gospel. One way to think about it is, say you have a policeman who was brought on to keep order; he has his blue uniform, the whistle, the cap. But say that he proceeds to rob people, misdirect traffic & cause accidents, and takes bribes. Then you would see the community step up: the regular people would arm themselves & patrol their homes; someone would jump out on the intersection and volunteer to direct traffic. So in this scenario, is the policeman BETTER than the lay people, just because he’s officially the one with the uniform? Of course not. But are those volunteers automatically policemen, by the sheer virtue of them doing his duties? No, either. The right course is for them to become ‘ordained’ as policemen, and to root out the corruption so that those in the police actually do what they were meant to. It’s a simple question of order. Baptist clergy are the good lay people at an intersection directing traffic, teaching, spreading gospel , while RC clergy are the corrupt policemen, valid but robbing people. Anglican clergy are those policemen who are at the intersection directing traffic; valid and doing what they’re supposed to be doing.
It’s not a doctrine, something you have to assent to. It’s something the church will just continue enacting within itself. You will just know that every minister you see will have been ordained by someone ordained by someone ordained by someone who was ordained literally by JOHN the APOSTLE himself. Which is kind of cool. And we don’t have a lot to say on the validity of the others Eucharist; it’s God’s own prerogative, since it is his body and blood. But we do have definitions for what a Eucharist is, as well for what constitutes violations and dangers that may result from profaning the sacrament. In other words the greatest confidence and certainty is here, but what happens over there, especially if it doesn’t consist of obvious profanations, is unknown.
But to answer his question an unordained with valid succession person can't consecrated the Eucharist. It calls into question all their sacraments except Baptism. Some Lutheran bodies do have AS
I see, but I still disagree lol. I don’t think God is bound by apostolic succession. In fact, I’d say if the RC is teaching heresy then that invalidates their order. Whatever God chooses to give to his ministers he gives it based on the will of the heart and preservation of the Gospel, not apostolic succession (to me anyways). And yes, I do think there should be order. I do. But to say that all the other Protestants are just laity wearing clergy’s clothes and don’t have the “power” to consecrate the Eucharist or whatever makes it seem like it’s some sort of magic…. I honestly even rn struggle with the idea of a change actually happening in the Eucharist. I know it’s what the church fathers taught, but to say “physical” presence is kinda doubtful. Coupled with the fact that apparently Lutherans don’t have the magic fingers to make Jesus appear lol I’d much rather say if God himself calls a man to an order of the church, who are we to say he’s not valid because he wasnt ordained by so and so who was ordained by Paul? Not to mention I highly doubt the apostolic succession for any church is right, no offense. I doubt they kept all the names in order. I think it was tertulian and ireneaus or something that both claimed different people for the bishop of Rome… and this was in the 3rd century lol
Most Roman Catholic bishops are unable to trace their succession past Scipione Rebiba who lived until 1577. It is unknown who consecrated Cardinal Rebiba. The Romans won't acknowledge it but quite a few Anglican bishops are in Rebiba's line as well. The Lutheran line that is generally respected is the Swedish line. The Baltic churches are mostly in that line as well.
Well, you can disagree and that's okay; that's one of the nice things about being in an Anglican church: we don't have to become robots. There are some differences of viewpoint among various Anglicans on various things that don't go to the heart of our salvation, but we can all get along because we agree on the really big stuff. You're absolutely right. However, the question really is whether man is bound to observe apostolic succession. Is it God's will for us to observe this way of doing things? It does help to ensure that Joe Blow doesn't just declare himself to be authorized to be a pastor and lead a congregation; that sort of thing can lead to guys like Jim Jones starting his own 'church' (a cult) and getting all the members to drink poisoned Kool-Aid. Although we don't have an explicit command from Jesus (recorded in the Bible, anyway) to establish succession from the apostles onward, we do see the practice shown in the Bible whereby the apostles prayerfully laid hands on certain ones for the work of the ministry, and history tells us that those people in turn laid hands on others for this work, and so on. We also see Moses laying hands on Joshua in obedience to God for an impartation of duty (Numbers 27:18-23). 1 Tim. 4:14 suggests that a ministry gift was passed to Timothy by this practice: Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. In Anglican churches only an ordained priest is allowed to preside over the consecration of the communion elements. This does not mean that the priest is exercising any supernatural powers over the elements or working a confection (no magic fingers in Anglicanism, either). But since the general Anglican view is that Jesus somehow (by a mystery) becomes present in the Eucharist (even though the bread and wine do not cease to be bread and wine), it seems right and appropriate both to represent this fact and to show appropriate reverence by not allowing just any old layperson to preside over the consecration. I can fully appreciate that a denomination which teaches memorialism might not have such a policy, for a strictly symbolic/memorialist view of communion would not call for that degree of reverence; any layperson could do it. (And yet, ironically, many Baptist churches have closed communion, as I'm sure you well know, while my Anglican parish has open communion for any baptized believer.) I hope this is of some help. Have you read John Jewel's treatise on the Sacraments yet, by chance? The things he writes concerning the Eucharist really resonate with me.
If a policeman becomes corrupt, he becomes a "corrupt policeman"; he doesn't stop being a policeman. This is why whenever cops are convicted of a crime, there has to be an additional special process to expel them from the police force. A corruption of an office does not invalidate the office. A bricklayer who volunteers to do police tasks when the police are absent, performs police tasks. In order for him to regularize his work, he just needs to become a policeman. He shouldn't continue being a bricklayer who jumps in to direct traffic, or to arrest people, whenever he has the time. However that doesn't mean that the police tasks he did while volunteering were necessarily bad, or worthless. We aren't talking about the effective result of the Baptist minister's work in the church. We are talking about the proper Church order, the ideal way of how things properly should be, if all other things were equal.
Something that has been missed so far in this thread is that the Anglican Church has no official view on how "Apostolic Succession" is actually achieved, and refuses to have one. There are many statements by the Church confirming that apostolic succession is of paramount importance, it's the justification we originally used for claiming its valid to have a church distinct from Rome, but each time the church has refused to define what is meant by the term. Apostolic succession is necessary for all validly ordained orders. The Eucharist can only be validly consecrated by an ordained priest (but deacons can still deliver the sacrament with consecrated reserve sacrament from an earlier service). But that doesn't mean all Anglicans believe Baptists don't have valid orders, we're intentionally murky on what we mean when we say a priest succeeds from the Apostles. Apostolic succession is, according to Anglicans, an unbroken chain of commitment, beliefs and mission not a literal laying on of the hands. How to ensure that unbroken chain has always been up for debate. In practice it is as Stalwart says, and your average church going Anglican is going to agree with his view (as do I), but it's not a doctrine that every priest needs to have been ordained by another apostolically succeeded bishop, and Anglicans are free to disagree with the majority opinion. Anglicans are at liberty to decide for themselves how such a thing can be proven. Some say that an unbroken chain of commitment can only be confirmed through the unbroken 'pipeline' of mechanical laying on of the hands, through Titus and Timothy down to Welby and Francis. This is an especially common opinion amongst Anglo-Catholics, and originates from the pipeline arguments made by Augustine. Others are less strict, and so accept the orders of other non-Apostolic churches. The Anglican Church continues to take special care to maintain an unbroken mechanical succession in their own clergy, but views will differ on if other non-apostolic churches have valid orders. And you're free, and encouraged, to think for yourself on such issues. The only things we're bound to agree on are the things we're told by Scripture. All else is up for debate.
I’m glad. I feel like there’s no such thing as “doctrine” outside of scripture. The Anglican Church is pretty much the only one except the EO that lets you have so much diversity in beliefs and doesn’t have a 200 page confession/ catechism. Except I feel more welcome in western Christianity and definitely agree with it more
I think we have different definitions of office. It’s really hard for me to believe you need an actual line back to the apostles to consecrate the Eucharist . Why isn’t such an important thing mentioned in the Bible? Not to mention consecrating the Eucharist is supposed to be the power of God. How could I say God is constrained to apostolic succession when he doesn’t say so in the Bible? To me, a heretical opinion doesn’t mean they can’t consecrate the Eucharist. Just that God is not pleased with them. So what if they can do it? Does that mean we should allow people with heretical opinions to hold such an office? I wouldn’t say so. That’s why their orders are “invalid.” To me, they’ve lost their right to minister before God. Not that I believe the RC is in this position, or at least not every priest. I’m not saying it’s worthless because God certainly uses all things to his purpose. But you have to remember I’ma baptist. To me preaching the truth of the gospel is THE core of the church and the priest. What good is the Eucharist if the people aren’t being spiritually fed with the truth first? Only as good as God allows it to be. Again, not saying they can’t consecrate the Eucharist. But I don’t think God is bound by church succession not stated in the Bible. It seems unfair that you can have right doctrine and not consecrate the Eucharist because your orders are “invalid” by something that’s not in the Bible in the first place. I agree with order of course. But I’d just need to see it in the Bible. That apostolic succession is required to consecrate the Eucharist.
Well in the 1662 Ordinal, that was indeed established. Hence followed the great ejection of all CofE ministers who couldn’t demonstrate that they had episcopal orders. We’re talking about different things. You’re saying that preaching is more important than the Eucharist; but what I’m saying is that the Eucharist belongs more to the office than preaching. We can see this most clearly in the fact that preaching is something which lay people can do. It’s not something exclusive to the minister or a definitional part of his office. It doesn’t make it less important; but it does make it less part of what the specific office of a minister entails. Nor is the Eucharist the only or “the main” part of that office. It’s an office like any other, with many specific prerogatives: -baptism -benediction -absolution -confirmation (bishops) -last rites -ordination (bishops) -matrimony It all goes back to the Scripture. Did Christ give specific commands and commissions to the Twelve, or not? We’re they given the ability to absolve sins; whatever they bound would be blind in heaven, and whatever they loosed would be loosed in heaven? Did he not say to the Twelve about the eucharist at his Last Supper: “Do this, in an anamnesis of me.” Didn’t the priests of the OT have exclusive prerogative to sacrifice the oblations of the faithful? What may be the source of your indignation is the presence of all this inequality in the Church; all these exclusions, which restrict people. If so, you may be operating on 19th Century American intuition that everything has to be unrestricted, equal, open. But in reality the image of the Church presented in the NT and OT is one of extreme exclusivity. In the OT you couldn’t even get into the ministry, one had to be born from certain parents to be qualified. In the NT, you had to be ordained from the right people to be qualified. Be sure you’re not importing America into Christianity.
God can work in any manner he wants but he gave us wounds to work in. So it is best to stay within them
Well I don’t think I’m importing america into Christianity. The OT priesthood is plainly obvious from scripture that they have a valid succession, because it’s all recorded in the genealogies. You are assuming that God installed this apostolic succession and that no one outside of it can be ordained . I have no problem saying it’s invalid if it says it in the Bible. But it doesn’t. So it doesn’t seem fair to me to say it’s invalid, when in fact, you don’t know. I genuinely do not see proof that any of the apostolic churches have a solid succession of all their clergy back to the apostles. Like I said before, even the bishop of Rome, who has the most meticulous recording of succession out of all, is still disputed in my eyes. It’s pretty much impossible to do it like they did in the OT because 1) the OT priesthood was through family lineage and 2) the OT lineages are all clearly recorded in scripture. We have no such thing for apostolic succession, many of them are highly disputed and have early Christians claiming 2 different people as bishop of Rome. I think God knows it’s a very messy system to have succession like that instead of through a family lineage. I’m not saying that the laity have the right to carry out the rites of the church. Not at all. What we differ on is what is constituted as a valid clergy. I do not see enough historical proof. Things like these are hard for me to accept as a matter of faith. It is not in scripture and history is nebulous at best.