Apostolic Succession

[Adammi]

I have heard the validity of Anglican apostolic succession refuted quite often, but have heard few rebuttals from Anglicans on this topic.

What are the specifics of Anglican apostolic succession?

[DeoJuvante]

My username is no accident:

Saepius Officio (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/%7Eucgbmxd/saepius.htm)

[Polycarp1]

Purely and simply, the Church of England, founded back in the Fifth Century, has continuously and purposefully ensured that its clergy were ordained by bishops themselves consecrated to the episcopacy by people already made bishops, continuing the lineage originally started by the Apostles. As did the Anglican churches of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland in communion with it. Some elements in the Church of Rome have found ways to lie about and slander it since the question first came up, changing their arguments whenever investigation disproved the current set (see "Nags Head Fable" for an example).

For the record, there can be no doubt (except among that small subset of Roman Catholics who see adherence to particularly Papistic views of ecclesiology as inherent in the required intention for a valid consecration -- and I'm using the terms technically, not insultingly, here) that the American church's orders are valid, as since the 1940s every bishop, including Gene Robinson, has been consecrated by someone carrying the Polish National Catholic succession lineage. The Old Catholics have participated in consecrations in other areas since the convention setting up full communion between the two lineages.

[brightmorningstar]

Of all the bishops the mention of Gene Robinson is a good starting point.
The idea of apostolic succession is the belief that the first apostles passed on their authority to successors, continuing to today.
I agree with that, Jesus taught His first apostles that all authority had been given to Him so that they should make new disciples.
The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the leader, and the succession from him. Of that’s possible but of course Anglicans don’t see that as probable.

However, I don’t see the idea of apostolic succession anywhere in the NT other than that.
Jesus NT teaching is that disciples make new disciples who obey all Jesus taught. What we know of that Jesus taught is from the NT writers, disciples and apostles.
So whoever is made apostle it is still Jesus who has authority and it is still Jesus teaching that we are to obey.
Without going into apostles, Bishops aren’t necessarily apostles though apostles can become Bishops. Bishops don’t tend to do what apostles did in the NT, they tend to do what the episkopos did. not surprisingly.

Indeed the apostle Paul rebukes the apostle Peter at one point.
So the church needs to appoint but authority remains in Jesus Christ… hence the problem with some appointments like Gene Robinson.

[Adammi]

Thanks for your answers.
I haven't had time to read Saepius Officio yet, but I definitely will.
One further question: The Archishop of Canterbury can trace his succession back to St. Augustine in the fifth century. Did St. Augustine have apostolic ties?

[brightmorningstar]

I can trace my sucession back to Abraham of Ur;)

[SeenAndUnseen]

...Some elements in the Church of Rome have found ways to lie about and slander it since the question first came up, changing their arguments whenever investigation disproved the current set (see "Nags Head Fable" for an example).

For the record, there can be no doubt (except among that small subset of Roman Catholics who see adherence to particularly Papistic views of ecclesiology as inherent in the required intention for a valid consecration -- and I'm using the terms technically, not insultingly, here) that the American church's orders are valid, as since the 1940s every bishop, including Gene Robinson, has been consecrated by someone carrying the Polish National Catholic succession lineage. The Old Catholics have participated in consecrations in other areas since the convention setting up full communion between the two lineages.

I am not here to debate Anglican/Episcopalian holy orders, but to clear up a misrepresentation of the Catholic position concerning them (since we have been spoken for above): it is not a small subset of Roman Catholics, but rather ALL Roman Catholics who discount the validity of Anglican holy orders. The Church does not recognize Anglican orders as valid. I just wanted to clear that up before anyone got the wrong idea about what we do in fact believe on this matter.

[Polycarp1]

I am not here to debate Anglican/Episcopalian holy orders, but to clear up a misrepresentation of the Catholic position concerning them (since we have been spoken for above): it is not a small subset of Roman Catholics, but rather ALL Roman Catholics who discount the validity of Anglican holy orders. The Church does not recognize Anglican orders as valid. I just wanted to clear that up before anyone got the wrong idea about what we do in fact believe on this matter.

You may want to check with Michelina on that, friend. I carefully distinguished between Leo XIII's decision on Church of England orders and the other member churches of the Anglican Communion, and between what the Catholic Church says and what Catholics purporting to speak for her have to say.

Specifically, Catholics hold that the Edwardine Ordinal was invalid in intent, and that while that fault has been repaired, the CoE lost apostolic succession while it was in place and therefore had no valid bishops to re-establish it. But by Tradition even one valid bishop is all that is needed to transmit the succession, and quite a number of lines not derived through ++Parker are validly in place -- leaving the question quite open these days.

On the question Upon_This_Rock raised, St. Augustine of Canterbury was consecrated and sent to Kent by Pope Gregory the Great ("non angeli sed Angli"), so I would hope that his lineage is recognized by Catholics! Also, a second line entered Canterbury with Theodore of Tarsus, derived from St. John the Beloved Disciple through my namesake St. Polycarp of Smyrna and St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Other Anglican sequences of orders trace back through the Antiochian lineage to Peter before he went to Rome.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear SeenandUnseen,
Yes indeed your point is valid, especially as many in the Anglican communion are beggining not to recognise certain Anglican oders as valid .
:)

[Adammi]

Also, a second line entered Canterbury with Theodore of Tarsus, derived from St. John the Beloved Disciple through my namesake St. Polycarp of Smyrna and St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Other Anglican sequences of orders trace back through the Antiochian lineage to Peter before he went to Rome.
I would like to know more about the Anglican lines from Sts. Peter and John.