User talk:Essjay/apostolic succession

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Apostolic Succession

Welcome back! I have a Roman Catholic question. Is apostolic succession - according to the RCC - valid in Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism? If the Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance, ordains someone, is that person viewed by the RCC as ordained via apostolic succession? What about bishops ordained/consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, York, or an Eastern Orthodox archbishop? Finally, what about Methodists, ordained via Wesley & Coke, who were ordained in the Church of England (and Wesley also ordained bishop by a Greek Orthodox bishop)? Just curious...thanks. KHM03 00:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the message/question! I've regrouped your question to make it easier to answer, so please excuse the formatting:

[edit] First, it is important to remember a couple things about the sacraments (and remember that this is specifically the Roman Catholic view):

  • The sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and holy orders confer an indelible mark upon the recipient that can never be removed; thus, anyone who has been baptized will always remain baptized, regardless of what they do, anyone who is confirmed remains eternally confirmed, and anyone who validly receives the sacrament of holy orders can never lose the faculties it confers.
  • There is a difference between a valid sacrament and a licit sacrament.
  1. Valid sacraments occur when the individual conferring the sacrament (bishop, priest, or deacon, as appropriate) was correctly ordained, and thus has the power to perform the sacrament, and the individual receiving the sacrament is properly disposed to receive the sacrament (in other words, the individual is capable of receiving the sacrament.)
  2. Licit sacraments occur when the individual performing the sacrament has permission to perform it. Any given sacrament may be valid and licit, valid but illicit, or invalid and illicit. (A sacrament cannot be licit but invalid because one of the criteria for the sacrament to be licit is that the minister performing it must be able to perform it validly.)
  3. An individual who has validly received holy orders is always capable of validly performing the sacraments proper to his order; however, an individual may not be able to licitly perform those sacraments, but this does not change the validity of the sacrament. Hence, a priest who has been defrocked is still capable of transubstantiation, but is forbidden to actually perform it. However, if he does so anyway, the host will still be consecrated, and it will be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ.
  • It is also important to remember that sacraments must take the proper form. If the correct rites are not followed, then the sacrament is not valid. Therefore, if I baptize you and say “In the name of the Queen, and of the Prime Minister, and of the Parliament” or “In the name of the President, and of the Congress, and of the Supreme Court” then you have not received a valid baptism. Additionally, sacraments must use valid matter. Thus a priest or bishop cannot consecrate tiramisu and a latte; although it would probably greatly increase church attendance. He must use approved material (grape wine and unleavened wheat bread). Also, I cannot baptize you with tomato soup if water is available (in an emergency, any liquid can be used; there are known cases where emergency baptism with antifreeze has been ruled valid.)

With that said, on to your specific questions:

[edit] "Is apostolic succession - according to the RCC - valid in Eastern Orthodoxy?"

Yes. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches recognize the validity of the other church’s sacraments. Because the EOC separated from Rome, but retained proper apostolic succession, the bishops off the EOC are able to properly consecrate their successors. All the sacraments of the EOC are valid according to the RCC. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
  • “The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. ‘These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.’ A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, ‘given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.’” (Catechism, 1399)

[edit] “Is apostolic succession - according to the RCC - valid in Anglicanism? If the Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance, ordains someone, is that person viewed by the RCC as ordained via apostolic succession? What about bishops ordained/consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, York, or an Eastern Orthodox archbishop?”

This is a trickier question.
  • According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, ‘have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.’ It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, ‘when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.’” (Catechism, 1400)
However, there are some interesting issues to be considered.
  • First, as I said above, episcopal ordination (being consecrated as a bishop) can never be lost. Therefore, any former RCC bishops who became Anglican bishops were still bishops, and had proper apostolic succession. Such individuals would be considered schismatics and heretics, and therefore would incur excommunication (Code of Canon Law, 1364), however, they would still be bishops.
  • Also, as I mentioned, a bishop can exercise his faculty to ordain validly but illicitly. Therefore, if a bishop properly ordained by a RCC bishop became Anglican, or one ordained by an Orthodox bishop became Anglican, he would still be validly a bishop. He could go on to consecrate any number of Anglican bishops who would all be validly bishops. However, since (according to the RCC) episcopal ordination requires the permission of the pope (CCL, 1382) these bishops would not have been licitly consecrated.
Thus, there is great probability that there are at least some Anglican bishops who are in the apostolic succession, albeit illicitly. Thus, anyone consecrated by those bishops would have valid Holy Orders. The official position, however, is that Anglicanism has not maintained proper apostolic succession. Also remember that the proper form for the sacrament must be observed.

[edit] “Finally, what about Methodists, ordained via Wesley & Coke, who were ordained in the Church of England (and Wesley also ordained bishop by a Greek Orthodox bishop)?”

Once again, according to Catechism 1400, any “ecclesial communities” derived from the Reformation are not in the proper apostolic succession.
But, as I said before, anyone properly consecrated by a RCC or Orthodox bishop is a bishop. If Wesley was ordained by an Orthodox bishop, then he was validly a bishop. If Coke was ordained by a Anglican bishop who was in the proper apostolic succession, then he was validly a bishop. If the bishop who ordained Coke was not in the proper apostolic succession, then he was not validly a bishop. So, there is a chance that there may be Methodists in the proper apostolic succession. Once again, the form the ordination took would be of importance.

I hope this helps, and if you have other questions, let me know. Essjay 04:06, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response...timely and detailed! There remains a great deal of confusion over these issues, particularly as we seek reunion in the Church (perhaps not in our lifetimes, but hopefully someday), and many of these issues will need to be worked through prayerfully and gracefully. I am glad to be on the raod to clarity regarding the positions of the whole Church, and not simply my little corner of it! Thanks again! KHM03 10:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

There are a couple of documents from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) I thought you might be interested in:

Also, this link is to a list of official Roman Catholic Ecumenical dialogues from the USCCB's Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs:

Hope you'll find them useful! Essjay 08:03, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Again...thanks for the links to resources...much to look at it in this confusing but important issue! KHM03 10:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I shared your question and my answer with a friend of mine, and he seemed to think that I might have been a bit too legalistic in my answer, and that you might not have actually gotten an answer to what you wanted to know. Let me know if you still have questions. Essjay 01:27, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

You know, I promised you the "Strides in Ecumenism Award," a big gold star, and a plenary indulgence, and I haven't followed through. So, here they are:

One Plenary Indulgence
Enlarge
One Plenary Indulgence
Image:SEA.jpg
Strides in Ecumenism Award
Big Gold Star
Enlarge
Big Gold Star


Congrats and good work! Essjay 11:02, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the awards...very nice! And don't worry about any "legalistic" language in your response to my recent query; it's a legalistic issue, isn't it? And it needs to be couched in "legalese"...and we need to be precise. No offense taken...clarification and your time much appreciated! KHM03 12:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

You have no idea how much it made me smile to see that you put my "awards" on your User page. All I can say is "From the One Who Was, Who Is, and Who Is to Come: Grace, light, and peace be with you always." (It's a Catholic thing...) Essjay 12:52, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Found a link (quite accidentally) which you might enjoy reading, though you would likely disagree with it. Methodist Apostolocity Blessings! KHM03 15:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always."

When I first saw the link you provided, I thought it said "Methodist Apostacy" not "Apostolocity"...I thought "Oh God, what has the Vatican said now???"

Anyhow, I didn't read the article all the way through (but rest assured, I will get to it!) I just wanted to comment on your "side" comment: "though you would likely disagree with it." I want to make sure you realize that I'm not actually Catholic; my interest in the church is academic and aesthetic. Sure, I've spent my life studying the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean I agree with it! My personal theology is very liberal; I'm Disciples of Christ, and I'm on the extreme liberal side of the DOC. (So that makes me extreme left of the extreme left, I guess...)

On the issue at hand, I don't disagree at all that the Methodist Church has whatever form of apostolic succession it claims to have! As long as they (you) have proof to back it up, like the "geneology" provided on the site you linked to, I believe it; if the MC decided to claim "all our clergy have been personally ordained by the Roman Catholic Pope, the Orthodox Patriarch, and the Emperor of Neptune" then I might disagree! If anything, I disagree that apostolic succession is necessary (or more accurately, that some individuals have it while others don't). In my extremist view, I disagree with anything that limits God, i.e. God can only work through a specific group of people with the proper credentials. For Heaven's sake, Jesus picked fishermen, tax collectors, and the chief persecutor of Christians to be apostles! Talk about credentials!

I just wanted to make sure that was clear; I know about them, but I'm not one of 'em! The answers I give to "what does the Church teach" questions are always what the Church teaches, not what I believe. (Oddly, I've never been asked "What do you think?") I act as a sort of "devil's advocate" so-to-speak. So, my answer to your question was "Catholic by proxy;" I was just saying what they would have said, although they might have said it in Latin...

Anyhow, I'm prepping my research on the five solas controversy, and will post a response there as soon as I make sure I know what I'm talking about (I'd hate to have missed an ex cathedra pronouncement somewhere along the line!) Peace be with you! Essjay (talk) 23:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/s/s/User_talk%7EEssjay_apostolic_succession_3323.html"