Before I leave to go see me Mum, I will leave you all with a short essay on a subject that mostly clergy and scholars or wanna bees find of any interest. If you are really bored and have nothing else to read please feel free to read it! Apostolic Succession In Western Catholicism, especially Roman Catholicism, the term “Apostolic Succession” refers to the idea that the spiritual gifts for the office of bishop and by extension to presbyters and deacons is conveyed through the act of the laying of hands on the head of the person being ordained from the apostles who knew Jesus to their immediate successors and from them to their successors. Over the centuries in Western Christianity this idea prevailed with the addition of the Roman notion of Petrine supremacy being established as a later doctrine or a further development of the concept. It says essentially in order for a minister to function he and now she must have a valid connection to the Apostles otherwise the Sacraments are not in fact and deed administered! Such validity and who can give it and how will be discussed later in the article. Claims to the effect that this practice has always been the case with the “Faith Catholic” are not entirely accurate particularly true as it relates to the New Testament and what we called “The Apostolic Church”. For one thing it is not clear particularly with the teachings of St Paul that there is even a distinction or separation between the office of overseer or bishop, and presbyter or elder, and indeed most scholars believe that in the Pauline Church the overseer referred to one local community hence the elder who lead the community was also the overseer or bishop. But it is clear that in the Apostolic Church it was the People that determined who would lead and not a superimposed hierarchy that made such determination, As the church expanded the number of faith communities springing up from place to place necessitated what has come to be the division between bishop and elder with the latter being an extension of the bishop’s office. The ministry of deacons which predates that of elder was not affected by this “division of labour”. Even today the deacon in the Eastern Orthodox Church holds a special relationship to the bishop that presbyters do not generally enjoy. Earlier I spoke of validity and this is where the waters begin to muddle a wee bit. Invariably there came to be divisions in the church and when these divisions which could be theological ones and or geopolitical ones occurred the idea that a person leading the offering of Eucharist and the dispensing of Sacraments had to hold a “valid” connection to the larger church for his leadership to be of any effect, that is without such connection the Eucharist and other Sacraments were not actually being celebrated and administered. When this happened men, as by then the male dominated hierarchy had effectively prevented women from any further exercise of ordained ministry, began to issued edicts declaring those in opposition to them or those who had abandoned the Faith during the Persecutions as no longer able to exercise the gifts conveyed in the Laying on of Hands and therefore invalid as to the effect granted in the Sacraments. In other words these bishops and presbyters as well as deacons’ ministries had been rendered null and void. This precipitated a predicament. What about those people who had been baptized on one of the “separatists” clergy were they truly baptized or not, what about those who received the Holy Unction did they actually receive the Eucharist or not for their journey into eternity, and what about those who wanted the Eucharist as the central act of worship for Christians? So a great council was called and over the centuries it was established at least in the West that as long as the person or persons doing the Laying on of Hands intended to convey the gifts and had in fact themselves been giving such gifts to transfer from someone who “descended” from the Apostles the conveyance was valid. It did not matter how unholy or separate the person was from the fellowship of the gathering the gifts were conveyed because it was God doing the giving of gifts. The person was simply the vehicle or means of conveying the gifts. This was never accepted in the Eastern Church. Then along came the Reformation with its cry of “Sola Scriptura” and turned the proverbial apple cart upside down. Suddenly you had people teaching that using the New Testament as the model meant that the old imperial model of hierarchy was not only wrong it was unbiblical! The doctrine of “the Priesthood of All Believers”, which the ancient church never rejected but sort of put on the back burner, came to be a force to reckon with in the development of the Protestant Churches. Just so you will know if you do not know already, the original meaning of the term “protestant” was one who affirmed not one who rejected or protested! As this new interpretation, or as the Reformers would insist the correct Biblical one, came to be the foundation of ecclesiology, the idea of the Apostolic Succession began to undergo much change and in some cases outright rejection. Interestingly where the notion of an historic episcopate was rejected a rather Eastern Church like view of “the Succession” came to be the norm for those faith communities that were congregational. This view was and to a large extent still is the idea that it is fidelity to the Gospel message and to the practice of the Apostolic Church that constitutes “Apostolic Succession” and that validity or what authenticates a sacrament is derived from the congregation that calls someone to leadership. In the Eastern view it is not the form or the intent but rather it is fidelity to the teaching and fellowship of the Church of Jesus Christ that determines validity. In other words it does not really matter which bishop “lays hands on” a person but rather whether this bishop is in communion in with the whole church. In England under Henry VIII who decided that when the pope would not grant him yet another annulment, which really was another word for divorce, he would separate the Church in England from ties to Rome and the Pope and it would become the Church OF England! Henry would proudly proclaim that he was “Catholic not pope Catholic” a claim he would hold till his death. After all Henry had been declared “Defender of the Faith” for his rejection of Luther and Lutheranism by none other than the pope! The problem was his offspring and they carried out two entirely different policies about the state church. Mary, his first daughter was an avid Roman Catholic and she burned and slashed her way into forcing England for a time back to the Roman fold but she died and who but Elizabeth, England’s first truly Protestant monarch and probably its first Anglican one, took over the reigns of power. For Elizabeth it was the “via media” the middle way that made the most sense politically and socially and probably for her theologically. With her the Anglican Church was born or perhaps reborn since it was the Ancient English/Celtic Church that had existed in the British Isles until the Council of Whitby had acceded to Roman authority way back in the third century A D. This middle way was to undergo many changes but in the end it was a Reformed Catholic view of the episcopate that ultimately won out. There is a third view of the Succession or perhaps I should say practice which has occurred in the West and specifically in the divisions resulting from not only the Reformation but also developments that happened following the First Vatican Council in the last decades of the 19th Century. It is a practice that is clearly an abuse of the Sacrament of Orders and is used by various groups that claim the designation “Old Catholic”, 99% of which are clearly not. When the First Vatican Council proclaimed papal infallibility a number of Roman Catholic bishops refused to accept that dogma that had never been held by the Latin Church as dogma in its entire history. The papacy was on the wane politically in Europe in general and in Italy in particular with the creation of the nation state of Italy. This required the dissolution of the Papal States which did not make the “Prisoner of the Vatican” a happy camper and so the idea of papal supremacy gained ground amongst those who saw the rise of “modernism” as a further threat to the stability and power of the Roman Church. But threat or no some of the bishops particularly the Archbishop of Utrecht refused to accept this new teaching and instead said that they would follow the “old way” of the Catholic Church, hence the term “Old Catholic” was born. There is much discussion as to whether this church ever actually sent official representatives to the UK or the US but there were individuals who did come to both countries who claimed the Apostolic Succession form Utrecht. Suffice it to say this outreach was a dismal failure and in many ways a catastrophe. A plethora of groups claiming “Old Catholic” status sprang up and in their zeal to “prove” that they were indeed “catholic” and therefore recognized by Rome they began the practice of multiple “consecrations” or what I call ‘cross pollinations”!. They became obsessed with proving their “validity” with extensive and often fabricated “pedigrees” which they would and still do present like some kind of “best in show” blue ribbon! None of these groups or individuals are accepted as legitimate by either the Roman or Old Catholic Churches and even many Anglican bodies do not either. The ultimate abuse came with the origin of neoGnostic and esoteric ordination mills that still sale their wares on the internet and in chat rooms. Mostly mentally unbalanced people are attracted to these groups. As to the legions of “Old Catholics” and or “Independent Sacramental Movement” individuals the vast majorities are gay men who parade around in liturgical vestments with imperial sounding titles but have no congregations to serve or lead. I think it is fair to say that as to the Apostolic Church the office of bishop and how that office was conveyed was in all probability both an early development of what came to be known as the “Historic Episcopate” and the Reformed Tradition of Congregational election and confirmation of the same by the laying of hands by the elders of those congregations. For the present Church it is an issue that needs to be resolved and may be done so by the sharing of both forms of the Succession whilst keeping in mind the Eastern Church and its understanding to and of the whole communion of the Church Universal. Rev Andrew Gentry
Posted on: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:59:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015