The Anglican Church and Apostolic Succession

[Victrixa]

Hi there my friends :wave:

I was wondering.... I read in your forum that the Anglican Church has the apostolic succession. I would like to know how it has apostolic succession? Thank you in advance.

Pax vobiscum,

Victrixa :)

[Colabomb]

Hi there my friends :wave:

I was wondering.... I read in your forum that the Anglican Church has the apostolic succession. I would like to know how it has apostolic succession? Thank you in advance.

Pax vobiscum,

Victrixa :)
In the same way your Church has Apostolic Succession.

Actually, our Succession comes through your Succession.

[PaladinValer]

Its the same Apostolic Succession you, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox (and some Lutherans; many of whom received it [or perhaps more accurately "were restored to it"] through us, notably the ELCA Lutherans) have: we can trace our bishops all the way back to the original Apostles (thus, the first bishops), whom were, of course, ordained by God Himself.

[Victrixa]

Thanks everybody. :)

How does the Anglican Church view the other churches (I'm speaking in Anglican terms here) who are out of the Apostolic succession? I.e., the non-denominational, Evangelical, Fundamentalist churches.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond. :)

Pax vobiscum.

[PaladinValer]

They are not of the visible Church, though they are truly Christian. I personally refer to them as denominations instead of churches.

[Colabomb]

They are not of the visible Church, though they are truly Christian. I personally refer to them as denominations instead of churches.
I don't know if I believe this or not, but I heard an interesting thought on the subject once.

There are three views on Apostolic Succession's connection to the Church.

1) that it is necessary for the Church's Existence, that without Apostolic Succession there is no Church.

2) that Apostolic Succession is for the Well being of the Church, that it is a good form of government but not at all necessary

3) that Apostolic Succession is for the Full being of the Church. The Church is complete with Apostolic Succession, but not necessarily bound up in it.

Again, I emphasize that I am not Subscribing to this, but that it is an interesting view of the subject.

[RobNJ]

How does the Anglican Church view the other churches (I'm speaking in Anglican terms here) who are out of the Apostolic succession? I.e., the non-denominational, Evangelical, Fundamentalist churches.


From a safe distance! ;)

I'm not sure what the OFFICIAL STAND is (if we have one, or only have one! :P )
But presonally, I consider them my brothers & sisters in Christ.

[Plan 9]

In the same way your Church has Apostolic Succession.

Actually, our Succession comes through your Succession.

and, possibly, ours through yours. ;)

[PaladinValer]

My mom's of the old school Borg. She will one day be assimilated in the Anglican Collective :D

[TomUK]

I would like to know how it has apostolic succession?

Odd question- we have apostolic succession because we succeed from the apostles. It's as simple as that.

[Cjwinnit]

and, possibly, ours through yours. ;)

First the ELCA, then the Methodists. You will be assimilated.. :)

Think of it this way, I was :D

[IowaLutheran]

Its the same Apostolic Succession you, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox (and some Lutherans; many of whom received it [or perhaps more accurately "were restored to it"] through us, notably the ELCA Lutherans) have: we can trace our bishops all the way back to the original Apostles (thus, the first bishops), whom were, of course, ordained by God Himself.


I may be wrong, but it seems like I read somewhere that the preference of the drafters of Called to Common Mission was for the ELCA to restore the lines of apostolic succession through the Lutheran churches where it was never lost, e.g., the Churches of Finland and Sweden. Regardless of how it was done, the impetus for the restoration of the historic episcopate was CCM.

[Victrixa]

Hi Tom :wave:

Odd question- we have apostolic succession because we succeed from the apostles. It's as simple as that.

I do not think that my question is odd because I see things from a (Roman) Catholic perspective... ;)



Tom or anyone else here,

What I am really curious about is, when King Henry VIII decided to split from the authority of the Pope of Rome, did all of England become 'Anglican'? What I mean is, did all the (Roman) Catholics of England at that time become Anglican? (Like there were no more Roman Catholics, only Anglicans. That is Catholics who could no longer be in communion with Rome through a rule which King Henry VIII would have set?)

I'm really interested to know what happened. Thank you again to whomever wishes to answer my question. :)

And thanks for all the responses! :D

[TomUK]

The Anglican church has existed from, at the latest, when St Augustine landed on our shores. For some of that time it has been affiliated with the [Roman] Catholic church, for some not. From my persepective Henry VIII didn't split the church from Rome, but shifted it back to its more orthodox and Christological roots.

[Victrixa]

Tom,

I never heard that version of the history of the Anglican Church. :confused: It's not Henry the VIII who split from the Roman Catholic Church because he wanted to divorce and remarry? I thought that was the way the Anglican church 'started'. I'm just a little confused... :sorry:

[Cjwinnit]

The Anglican church has existed from, at the latest, when St Augustine landed on our shores.

It is worth pointing out that "Anglican" literally means "English" and the Church was referred to as "the English Church" in such documents as the Magna Carta of 1216.

For some of that time it has been affiliated with the [Roman] Catholic church, for some not.

Worth reading up on the early British Saints like Bede the Venerable (Doctor of the Church), St. Aidan, St. Cuthbert and St. Patrick on how they would convene synods to decide between Western and Eastern practises (on things like the setting of the date of Easter at the Synod of Whitby, 664 AD

[TomUK]

Tom,

I never heard that version of the history of the Anglican Church. :confused: It's not Henry the VIII who split from the Roman Catholic Church because he wanted to divorce and remarry? I thought that was the way the Anglican church 'started'. I'm just a little confused... :sorry:

The only reason Henry married his first wife (forget the name :doh: ) was due to a special Papal dispensation even though it was against canonical law. To cut avery long and complex story short, Henry VIII was never able to deliver andheir and he blamed this on the fact that his marriage was the result of a change in canonical law. He asked the Pope to grant him an annlulment but the Pope refused as he was too concerned with the current political climate and realised it would look rather hypocritical for him to annul a marriage he changed canonical law to validate.

[PaladinValer]

Tom,

I never heard that version of the history of the Anglican Church. :confused: It's not Henry the VIII who split from the Roman Catholic Church because he wanted to divorce and remarry? I thought that was the way the Anglican church 'started'. I'm just a little confused... :sorry:

He didn't want a divorce! He wanted an annulment.

[Cjwinnit]

The only reason Henry married his first wife (forget the name :doh: ) was due to a special Papal dispensation even though it was against canonical law.

Catherine of Aragon, his brother's widow.

This thread is definately gona run :)

[TomUK]

Brace yourself!

[Victrixa]

It is worth pointing out that "Anglican" literally means "English" and the Church was referred to as "the English Church" in such documents as the Magna Carta of 1216.

Yeah but the English Catholic Church can be referred to as 'The English Church', no? :scratch:

[Victrixa]

He didn't want a divorce! He wanted an annulment.

Well he got really angry when he couldn't get his annulment and decided to do his own thing in order to remarry, didn't he? :confused: Ya know, the Lord probably wanted him to remain married. The Catholic Church does not always give out annulments as it is not always God's will?

[TomUK]

The Catholic Church does not always give out annulments as it is not always God's will?

Neither was his first marriage

[Victrixa]

And, oh, do not worry, my friends, I am not here to argue. I sincerely have questions and am taking in the information you are sharing with me. :)

[TomUK]

Argue away- it's a great topic! (i'm not a moderator mind, but what are these forums for if we can't exchange in a healthy dialogue? :) )

[masuwerte]

Yeah but the English Catholic Church can be referred to as 'The English Church', no? :scratch:
They both could, IMHO.

[Cjwinnit]

Yeah but the English Catholic Church can be referred to as 'The English Church', no? :scratch:

It's a stretch.

First off, saying it's "The English Church" instead of "An English Church" is slightly misleading as there are other churches in England. It was valid then as there was only one church in England at the time.

(Roman Catholic hierarchies in the UK were recognized in the 19th century).

Second, the Roman Catholic hierarchy in the British Isles is split into three: one in Ireland, one in Scotland and one in England and Wales. There isn't an RCC juristiction just solely for England, but the Church of England does.

Third, until Vatican II the Catholic Church in England and Wales used Latin rather than English.

Anyway, it would be too confusing if it were called "The English Church".

I'd be forever forgetting which church is "The Church of England" and "the English Church" :D

Argue away- it's a great topic! (i'm not a moderator mind, but what are these forums for if we can't exchange in a healthy dialogue? :) )

True.

[pmcleanj]

Yeah but the English Catholic Church can be referred to as 'The English Church', no? :scratch:

There is only one Church. The Book of Common Prayer makes it clear that the Church is the Body (singular) of Christ, the Bride (singular) of Christ, and the Whole Company of All Faithful People. That one Church is Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. That is, it is of God and belongs to God; it subsists throughout all time and in all places; and its authorities are the Apostles and their heirs the Bishops (plural), each one the authority within his or her own see.

In the later middle ages the Church in England deviated from this norm, through political liasons and power politics arranged between the powerful Bishop of Rome and the noble and ruling houses of England. In fact, the final invasion of England in 1066 was papally sponsored. However, isolated regions of Britain maintained ancient pre-Whitby norms as long as possible against the imported religious hierarchy. They were beaten back as the Normans with their continental liasons "pacified" the Celtic tribes who had originally fostered Christianity in Britain.

Henry VIII mixed politics with religion as much as any; but some of the Bishops had other ideas, and were working to reform the church and restore the independance of Bishops despite Henry's own agenda. They capitalized on Henry's falling out with the Pope over the matter of his anullment to reform the Church in England by eliminating the imported abuses (including episcopal hierarchicalism).

Thus the Church in England is both Catholic and Reformed. (Oddly though, while the Roman Catholics often drop by to say "wow, it's almost as if you're Catholic", the Calvinist Reformed have never yet dropped by to say "wow, it's almost as if you're Reformed" -- maybe they don't think we are :D ! )

As a result of the English Reformation, independance of Bishops was restored in the English Catholic Church (that is, the Anglican Church). Some Bishops, however, chose to remain in improper submission to a foreign see, and to promote that submission in England. They were banned and (with a continuation of the mixing of politics and religion that had previously bolstered Rome's influence in England) accused of treason; and were threatened with -- and sometimes punished with -- death. Most continued improperly to function as Bishops despite their banning, breaking the law and risking those lawful punishments.

Subsequent changes to the law somewhat normalized the banned Bishops' and priests' right to function; by removing the association between submission to Rome, and treason. But Ecclesiastically, of course, their function is completely improper. So is the function of priests appointed by those Bishops who submit to Rome. They are improper, because in both cases because they are functioning inside the see of another properly-appointed Bishop. On the gripping hand, though, only civil strife results from opposing their improper function. We manage to co-exist with all sorts of Christians who don't recognize the proper authority of Bishops. Co-existing with those who recognize the wrong Bishops is just a different example of the same tolerance.

So while it's a practical reality that there is a hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in England; the ecclesiastical reality is that *if* you are English, and *if* you are Christian, then you are all just Anglicans who haven't realized it yet, and who are putting yourselves in wrongful submission to improper Bishops.

Normally, we try to be polite and not have to mention that.

[benedictine]

Here is the apostolic succession fo the Anglican Mission in America:

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/succession.html

Tha Apostolic Succession of Archbishop Russ McClanahan:
http://www.theceec.org/Russuccession.htm

That's all I could find at the moment.

As for methodists having a valid Apostolic Succession through Anglicanism, I don't believe this is the case. Although there is an episcopate, the first methodist "elders" were ordained by an Anglican Priest, Charles Wesley. This isn't doable, becosue Charles Wesley wasn't an ordained Bishop in Apostolic Succession himself, and therefore unable to pass the apostolic succession along. It might have been John Wesley, but I think it was his brother, Charles.

[Bonifatius]

It might have been John Wesley, but I think it was his brother, Charles.

Hi Benedictine,

it was John (in 1784) ;)
Charles was against the idea from the beginning and told John off for "ordaining" elders (priests) because this meant breach with Canterbury and Charles always wanted the Methodists to be part of the Anglican Church.

Greetings,
Tom

[Colabomb]

Well he got really angry when he couldn't get his annulment and decided to do his own thing in order to remarry, didn't he? :confused: Ya know, the Lord probably wanted him to remain married. The Catholic Church does not always give out annulments as it is not always God's will?
The way I understand it. Some in England wanted a split anyway, and they used Henry's Remarriage issue as an excuse. I don't fully understand it, but it seems Henry's Divorce was more of a Catalyst than it was a reason.

[TomUK]

Colabomb's spot on- it's a far too complicated issue to try and simplify it down saying 'this one reason was why the church split'. I recall a great post from Poly introducing many of the circumstances at the time- if only we had the search members post function back again. :mad:

[Cjwinnit]

I recall a great post from Poly introducing many of the circumstances at the time- if only we had the search members post function back again. :angry:


Yeah, when did that go?

[TomUK]

I think it was slowing the boards down.

[Colabomb]

The way I understand it. Some in England wanted a split anyway, and they used Henry's Remarriage issue as an excuse. I don't fully understand it, but it seems Henry's Divorce was more of a Catalyst than it was a reason.
Oh, shoot I said Divorce!!!

IT WAS AN ANNULMENT!!!

Do'h

[ctobola]

I may be wrong, but it seems like I read somewhere that the preference of the drafters of Called to Common Mission was for the ELCA to restore the lines of apostolic succession through the Lutheran churches where it was never lost, e.g., the Churches of Finland and Sweden. Regardless of how it was done, the impetus for the restoration of the historic episcopate was CCM.

The ELCA didn't need to "restore the lines of apostolic succession" because we've never considered it/them lost. Lutherans have always considered the Church to be defined by faith in Christ, not by any particular ecclestiastical structure... hence the reason we don't need bishops present at ordinations, also why we don't require clergy to preside at communion -- we consider all Christian people to be priests.

The CCM agreement was not about Lutherans accepting ECUSA clergy -- Lutherans already did that: it was about having Lutheran pastors go through the proper steps so they would be palatable to serve Episcopal congregations.

-Cloy

[akascottb]

just an fyi, i asked my priest about the anglican apastolic succession. he told me it is more than just the laying on of hands, but also the preservation of the faith. the tone in which he said this indicated that the orthodox church did not recognize the apostolic succession of the church of england.
this is passed on, not to argue but just to add to the discussion. i am not educated enough to render an informed opinion.

daniel
akascottb

p.s. i am russian orthodox

[PaladinValer]

We do preserve the orthodox faith; we are fully Catholic. :)

[benedictine]

Also, I heard that some Orthodox Churches do recognize Anglican Succession.

[pmcleanj]

Moderator hat on.

The Anglican forum rules are located at http://www.christianforums.com/t713425-scripturetraditionreason-anglican-forum-rules.html. Note the passage that reads:

Visitors should note that the Anglican Church considers itself to be a legitimate continuation of the original Church founded by Christ, and refrain from suggesting that the Anglican Church is characterized by schism or innovation. In short, if you have a problem with Anglicans considering themselves as "Catholic" or as a part of the Apostolic Succession, say it somewhere else, not here -- or have the charity not to say it at all.

In other words, the negative opinion of a Russian Orthodox priest should not be shared here.

[akascottb]

Moderator hat on.

The Anglican forum rules are located at http://www.christianforums.com/t713425-scripturetraditionreason-anglican-forum-rules.html. Note the passage that reads:



In other words, the negative opinion of a Russian Orthodox priest should not be shared here.

my deepest apologies. I meant to suggest nothing. I was just passing along a conversation i had. i do not know anything about the church of england, and did not mean to offend anyone.

please forgive me,

daniel

[pmcleanj]

Hey, no problem; forgiven! Come on up to the Alehouse and I'll stand you to a virtual. Or Pancakes!

[Fish and Bread]

The Eccumenical (Eastern Orthodox) Patriarch of Constantinople in 1922 decared that he considered Anglican orders to be as valid as he considered the Roman orders to be. The way he phrased it made me wonder if he was trying to imply that all of our orders are flawed or that both the Romans and Anglicans have valid orders, but there you go, for what it's worth.

John

[PaladinValer]

The Eastern Orthodox don't consider Vatican orders to be valid from what heard.

[SirTimothy]

The following two links are fascinating... the first on the subject of our validity, and the second on Anglican/Orthodox relations:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm

http://gc2003.episcopalchurch.org/6947_9598_ENG_Print.html

Timothy

[gtsecc]

The Eccumenical (Eastern Orthodox) Patriarch of Constantinople in 1922 decared that he considered Anglican orders to be as valid as he considered the Roman orders to be. The way he phrased it made me wonder if he was trying to imply that all of our orders are flawed or that both the Romans and Anglicans have valid orders, but there you go, for what it's worth.

John

I would love to know more. Link?

[akascottb]

The Eccumenical (Eastern Orthodox) Patriarch of Constantinople in 1922 decared that he considered Anglican orders to be as valid as he considered the Roman orders to be. The way he phrased it made me wonder if he was trying to imply that all of our orders are flawed or that both the Romans and Anglicans have valid orders, but there you go, for what it's worth.

John


one thing to remember is that, no orthodox bishop has authority over the whole church. none of them has the power that the pope claims for himself in the RCC. that being said, the eccumenical patriarch is not ignored either.

daniel

[SirTimothy]

I would love to know more. Link?

Check the links I gave--they give more info.

Timothy