   #copyright

Apostolic Succession

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: Religious disputes

   In Christianity, the doctrine of Apostolic Succession (or the belief
   that the Church is 'apostolic') maintains that the Christian Church
   today is the spiritual successor to the original body of believers in
   Christ composed of the Apostles. Different Christian denominations
   interpret this doctrine in different ways.

   In episcopal churches, the Apostolic Succession is understood to be the
   basis of the authority of bishops (the episcopate). In the Roman
   Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, Apostolic Succession
   is claimed as having been passed through unbroken lines of bishops
   beginning with the original Apostles. The Roman Catholic Church has
   traditionally been the most vocal in claiming unique legitimacy in
   terms of Apostolic Succession based on the assertion that Saint Peter,
   believed to be the rightful leader of the Church, was the first Bishop
   of Rome. Other communions such as Anglicanism and Oriental Orthodoxy
   claim legitimacy on a similar basis. Virtually all Christian
   denominations consider Apostolic Succession important in some fashion
   although their definitions of the concept may vary.

Apostolicity as doctrinal continuity

   While many churches within the historic episcopate argue that holy
   orders are valid only through apostolic succession, most Protestant
   Churches would deny that the apostolicity of the Church rests on an
   unbroken episcopacy. They generally hold that one important
   qualification of the apostles was that they were chosen directly by
   Jesus and that they witnessed the resurrected Christ. According to this
   understanding, the work of these twelve (and the Apostle Paul),
   together with the prophets of the twelve tribes of Israel, provide the
   doctrinal foundation for the whole church of subsequent history through
   the Scriptures of the Bible. To share with the apostles the same faith,
   to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same
   Holy Spirit, is the only sense in which apostolic succession is
   meaningful, because it is in this sense only that men have fellowship
   with God in the truth (an extension of the Reformation doctrines of
   sola fide and sola scriptura). The most meaningful apostolic succession
   for most Protestants, then, is the faithful succession of apostolic
   teaching. There is, of course, much disagreement among various
   Protestant churches about the exact content of apostolic teaching. In
   addition, Protestants state that the teaching of Apostolic Succession
   did not arise until 170-200 A.D.

   It is worth noting, however, that some Protestant charismatic churches
   include "apostles" among the offices that should be evident into modern
   times in a true church, though they never trace an historical line of
   succession.

   Those who hold to the importance of episcopal apostolic succession
   would counter the above by appealing to the New Testament, which, they
   say, implies a personal apostolic succession (from Paul to Timothy and
   Titus, for example) and which states that Jesus gave the Apostles a
   "blank cheque" to lead the Church as they saw fit under the guidance of
   the Holy Spirit. They appeal as well to other documents of the very
   early Church, especially the Epistle of St. Clement to the Church at
   Corinth, written around 96 AD In it, Clement defends the authority and
   prerogatives of a group of " elders" or " bishops" in the Corinthian
   Church which had, apparently, been deposed and replaced by the
   congregation on its own initiative. In this context, Clement explicitly
   states that the apostles both appointed bishops as successors and had
   directed that these bishops should in turn appoint their own
   successors; given this, such leaders of the Church were not to be
   removed without cause and not in this way. Further, proponents of the
   necessity of the personal apostolic succession of bishops within the
   Church point to the universal practice of the undivided early Church
   (up to 431 AD), from which, as organizations, the Catholic and Eastern
   Orthodox (at that point in time one Church until 1054, see Great
   Schism), as well Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Churches have all
   directly descended.

   At the same time, no defender of the personal apostolic succession of
   bishops would deny the importance of doctrinal continuity in the
   Church. As stated above, Irenaeus explicitly ties the two together.

Mainstream Christianity

Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican Churches

   The Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian,
   Independent Catholic, Anglican Communion and some others hold that
   apostolic succession is maintained through the consecration of their
   bishops in unbroken personal succession back to the apostles. These
   churches hold that Jesus Christ founded a community of believers and
   selected the apostles to serve, as a group, as the leadership of that
   community. In Catholic and Orthodox theology, the "College of Apostles"
   received the sacrament of Holy Orders from Christ, making them the
   first bishops, and the bishops of the world today, as a group (the
   College of Bishops) have the same role within the church as the College
   of Apostles did immediately after Christ's ministry (the Catholic
   Church additionally holds that within the College of Apostles, Peter
   was picked out for the unique role of leadership and to serve as the
   source of unity among the apostles, a role among the bishops and within
   the church inherited by the pope as Peter's successor today).

   These churches hold that Christ entrusted the leadership of the
   community of believers, and the obligation to transmit and preserve the
   "deposit of faith" (the experience of Christ and his teachings
   contained in the doctrinal "tradition" handed down from the time of the
   apostles, the written portion of which is Scripture) to the apostles,
   and the apostles passed on this role by ordaining bishops after them.

   Catholic and Orthodox theology additionally hold that the power and
   authority to confect the sacraments, or at least all of the sacraments
   aside from baptism and matrimony (the first of which may be
   administered by anyone, the second of which is administered by the
   couple to each other) is passed on only through the sacrament of Holy
   Orders, and an unbroken line of ordination of bishops to the apostles
   is necessary for the valid celebration of the sacraments today.
   Catholics recognize the validity of the apostolic successions of the
   bishops, and therefore the rest of the clergy, of the Eastern Orthodox,
   Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Old Catholic, and some Independent
   Catholic Churches. The Eastern Orthodox do not recognize Catholics nor
   any other group as having Apostolic Succession, examples of economia
   such as the reception of Catholic priests by "vesting" rather than by
   re-ordination, notwithstanding. Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox
   Church recognize the validity of the apostolic succession of the clergy
   of the Anglican or other Protestant churches, in large measure because
   of their theology of the Eucharist.

   The unbrokenness of apostolic succession is also significant because of
   Jesus Christ's promise that the "gates of hell" would not prevail
   against the Church, and his promise that he himself would be with the
   apostles to "the end of the age". According to this interpretation, a
   complete disruption or end of such apostolic succession would mean that
   these promises were not kept as would an apostolic succession which,
   while formally intact, completely abandoned the teachings of the
   Apostles and their immediate successors; as, for example, if all the
   bishops of the world agreed to abrogate the Nicene Creed or to
   repudiate the Bible.

   Pope Leo XIII stated, in his 1896 bull Apostolicae Curae that the
   Catholic Church believes specifically that the Anglican Church's
   consecrations are "absolutely invalid and utterly void" because of
   changes made to the rite of consecration under Edward VI, thus denying
   that Anglicans participate in the apostolic succession. A reply of the
   Archbishops of Canterbury and York (1896) countered Pope Leo's
   arguments.

   The language of Leo's statement was reinforced in the accompanying
   commentary to Ad Tuendam Fidem:

     With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical
     necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to
     be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be
     given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of
     the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of
     saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the
     Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican
     ordinations...

   The Old Catholic Union of Utrecht, is in full communion with Canterbury
   and Anglicanism since the Bonn Agreement of 1931. It should also be
   noted that since the issuance of Apostolicae Curae, many Anglican
   jurisdictions have revised their ordinals, bringing them more in line
   with ordinals of the early Church.

   In addition to a line of historic transmission, Eastern Orthodox and
   Oriental Orthodox churches additionally require that a hierarch
   maintain Orthodox Church doctrine, which they hold to be that of the
   Apostles, as well as communion with other Orthodox bishops. The Eastern
   Orthodox have permitted clergy ordained by Catholic and Anglican
   bishops to be rapidly ordained within Orthodoxy. However, this is a
   matter of economia and not recognition of Apostolic Succession,
   although in some cases, Catholic priests entering Eastern Orthodoxy
   have been received by "vesting" and have been allowed to function
   immediately within Orthodoxy as priests, which is still merely economia
   and not recognition of Apostolic Succession.

   The Armenian Apostolic Church, which is one of the Oriental Orthodox
   churches, recognizes Catholic episcopal consecrations without
   qualification (and that recognition is reciprocated).

Protestant Churches

Lutheran Church

   Some Lutheran Churches, the Churches of the Porvoo Communion, and the
   Old Catholic Church (which is also in communion with the Anglican
   Communion) also believe that they ordain their bishops in the apostolic
   succession in line from the apostles.

   The Church of Sweden's apostolic succession is, according to some
   reports and despite its Lutheranism, seen by the Catholic Church as
   having been maintained, and following the establishment of the Porvoo
   Communion an increasing number of Anglicans could alternatively trace
   their succession through Swedish bishops as well as Old Catholic
   bishops, whose holy orders are recognized as valid by Rome. Other
   Churches within the historic episcopate also see the Evangelical
   Lutheran Church of Finland as having mantained apostolic succession.

Methodist Church

   Bishops in the United Methodist Church do not claim to be within the
   historic episcopate in the same way as Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox
   bishops. They do, however, claim a corporate ("connectional") and
   theological form of Apostolic succession, and are not adverse to
   ecumenical acts which would further establish their ministry within the
   historic episcopate, though such would have to be accomplished without
   repudiating or otherwise questioning the validity of their current
   orders and ministries. Methodist episcopal succession derives from John
   Wesley, who was an ordained presbyter of the Church of England but not
   himself a bishop and thus not officially authorized to consecrate
   others. Wesley justified his practice of ordaining bishops (which he
   called " General Superintendents") and Elders (i.e., presbyters) for
   Methodists in the newly independent United States of America in 1784 by
   appealing to a perceived need and by citing a minority opinion among
   the early Church Fathers and an ancient precedent from the Church of
   Alexandria, which held that presbyters ("priests" or "elders") could,
   at least collectively, indeed ordain other such presbyters and even
   consecrate, or "set apart" bishops in certain emergency situations.
   Based upon this argument, the United Methodist Church understands all
   of its Elders, not just its Bishops, as being part of an Apostolic
   succession of the entire body (or "conference") of ministers:

     “ In ordination, the church affirms and continues the apostolic
       ministry through persons empowered by the Holy Spirit. ( Book of
                          Discipline paragraph 303)                    ”

   In other words, Methodists understand apostolic succession as being
   rooted within the Presbyterate. This does not mean, however, that all
   elders may ordain; quite the contrary: only those elders who have been
   elected and consecrated as bishops can further the apostolic succession
   through the ordination of bishops, elders, and deacons within the
   United Methodist Church. In this way, the United Methodist episcopacy
   functions as if it were within the historic episcopate.

   Accepting, but moving beyond this position, a few Methodists do affirm
   that their bishops stand in a form of the historic, as well as
   theological, Apostolic Succession (i.e., in the Anglican fashion);
   their argument is that Wesley's ordinations, and therefore the
   subsequent line of Methodist bishops, are legitimate due to the
   critical nature of the circumstances extant at that time. Some
   Methodists even make an appeal to the "Erasmian consecration," which
   asserts that, while on a visit to London in 1763, the Greek Orthodox
   bishop of the Diocese of Arcadia, Crete, secretly consecrated Wesley to
   the episcopacy. That Wesley actually met with Bishop Erasmus during the
   bishop's visit to London is not questioned; what is questioned is that
   Erasmus did more than simply "confirm Wesley in his ministry among the
   Methodists in England and America." When Wesley was asked by a
   clergyman if Erasmus of Arcadia had consecrated him a bishop, he said:
   "I cannot answer you." Another source states that when Wesley was asked
   if Erasmus had made him a bishop, he offered no personal response but,
   rather, took the unusual course of authorizing a representative to
   reply that he had not requested episcopal consecration within the Greek
   Orthodox line. Many take this as a sufficient denial, and it was enough
   to keep Wesley out of jail, but those who believe that Wesley was
   actually consecrated make the following arguments to the contrary:
    1. Wesley personally remained silent on the subject,
    2. Wesley took the unusual step of having someone to speak on his
       behalf, and
    3. Wesley never actually denied being consecrated a bishop, what he
       denied was requesting consecration from Erasmus.

   This distinction may seem meaningless today, but it is actually quite
   substantive given the circumstances of the 1700s. Were Wesley actually
   consecrated a bishop by Erasmus, he would not have been able to
   publicly affirm such without falling prey to the stipulations of the
   English Acts of Supremacy (1534 & 1559). To keep from being charged
   with treason, and to keep his head, it is argued that Wesley skirted
   the question altogether by offering a "non-denial denial." Given the
   circumstances, many assert that this argument actually makes some
   sense: Wesley was asked if he had been made a bishop by Erasmus; his
   response was that he had not requested consecration ... which actually
   doesn't answer the original question! After all, episcopal consecration
   could have been Erasmus' idea, not Wesley's. If Wesley had affirmed
   that he had been made a bishop, or even if he had just confessed that
   he had requested consecration, he would have been placing himself in
   jeopardy of treason against the crown! Wesley was a self-professed Whig
   and a faithful "son of the English Church". To publicly violate the
   Oaths of Supremacy would have been entirely repugnant to him on both
   political and theological grounds ... not to mention that he was
   understandably fond of his own neck. Hence, the argument concludes that
   Wesley obfuscated the entire issue by distancing himself from the
   question and by answering in such a way as to deflect further inquiry.
   Despite the beliefs of many Methodists and other Anglicans -- beliefs
   which were finally articulated after Wesley's death -- it worked; while
   the question never died out entirely, Wesley remained a presbyter of
   the Church of England until the day he died. Contrary to the "Erasmian
   consecration" stands the undeniable fact that, beginning with the
   American Revolution in the 1770s, Wesley did request episcopal
   consecration for several of his preachers and, indeed, for himself, so
   as to provide sacramental ministry for the Methodists in the break-away
   colonies. Opponents of the possibility that John Wesley had been
   consecrated a bishop by Erasmus of Arcadia argue that if Wesley had
   already been consecrated a bishop by Erasmus, he would have not
   requested such consecrations for others or for himself. The Greek
   Orthodox Bishop, Erasmus of Arcadia, is said to have ordained several
   Methodist lay preachers during Reverend John Wesley's absence from
   London in 1764,notably, Reverend John Jones.

   Nevertheless, the "Erasmian consecration" remained a very popular
   argument throughout much of the 1800s and, while still garnering a
   following among some proponents today, it is not accepted by a majority
   of Methodists nor even by most of those who affirm a form of
   Apostolicity for their bishops. Interestingly enough, Wesley's
   consecration as a bishop by Erasmus of Arcadia is affirmed by Unity
   Catholic Church, an Independent Catholic Church.

   Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Succession"
   This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia
   with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details
   of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer.
