Episcopal consecration by another bishop (or bishops) ensures continuity.

Apostolic succession is "the method whereby the ministry of the Christian Church is held to be derived from the apostles by a continuous succession" which is usually located in a series of bishops who have succeeded one another in the same see. It derived its origin directly from one of the apostles or indirectly through the initiative of an apostolic see.^[1][2] Bishops are seen not as succeeding to the apostolic office itself and being themselves apostles, but instead as succeeding to the pastoral care of the Christian community founded by the apostles.^[3][4]

Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey describes three meanings of "apostolic succession":

1. One bishop succeeding another in the same see meant that there was a continuity of teaching: "while the Church as a whole is the vessel into which the truth is poured, the Bishops are an important organ is carrying out this task".
2. The bishops were also successors of the apostles in that "the functions they performed of preaching, governing and ordaining were the same as the Apostles had performed".
3. It is also used to signify that "grace is transmitted from the Apostles by each generation of bishops through the imposition of hands".

He adds that this last has been controversial in that it has been claimed that this aspect of the doctrine is not found before the time of Augustine of Hippo, while others allege that it is implicit in the Church of the second and third centuries.^[5] The doctrine was formulated in the second century in the first of the three senses given by Ramsey, originally as a response to Gnostic claims of having received secret teaching from Christ or the apostles; it emphasised the public^[6] manner in which the apostles had passed on authentic teaching to those whom they entrusted with the care of the churches they founded and that these in turn had passed it on to their successors.^[2][7][8]

In its 1982 statement on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches spoke of episcopal succession as something that churches that do not have bishops can see "as a sign, though not a guarantee, of the continuity and unity of the Church" and that all churches can see "as a sign of the apostolicity of the life of the whole church".^[9]

"Apostolic succession" in the early Fathers[link]

Writing about AD 94, Clement of Rome states that the apostles appointed successors to continue their work where they had planted churches and for these in their turn to do the same because they foresaw the risk of discord. He uses both 'bishop' and 'presbyter' to refer to these men. The interpretation of his writing is disputed, but it is clear that he supports some sort of approved continuation of the apostolic ministry^[11] which in its turn was derived from Christ.^[1]

Hegesippus (180?) and Irenaeus (180) introduce explicitly the idea of the bishop's succession in office as a guarantee of the truth of what he preached in that it could be traced back to the apostles.^[12] and they produced succession lists to back this up.^[13] That this succession depended on the fact of ordination to a vacant see and the status of those who administered the ordination is seldom commented on. Woollcombe also states that no one questioned the apostolicity of the See of Alexandria despite the fact that its Popes were consecrated by the college of presbyters up till the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325.^[12] Irenaeus also refers to a succession of presbyters who preserve the tradition "which originates from the apostles".^[14] and later goes on to speak of their having "an infallible gift of truth"[charisma veritatis certum]. Jay comments that this is sometimes seen as an early reference to the idea of the transmission of grace through the apostolic succession which in later centuries was understood as being specifically transmitted through the laying on of hands by a bishop within the apostolic succession (the "pipeline theory"). He warns that this is open to the grave objection that is makes grace a (quasi)material commodity and represents an almost mechanical method of imparting what is by definition a free gift. He adds that the idea cannot be squeezed out of Irenaeus' words.^[14]

Writing a little later, Tertullian makes the same main point but adds expressly that recently founded churches (such as his own in Carthage) could be considered apostolic if they had "derived the tradition of faith and the seeds of doctrine" from an apostolic church.^[15] His disciple, Cyprian (Bishop of Carthage 248-58) appeals to the same fundamental principle of election to a vacant see in the aftermath of the Decian Persecution when denying the legitimacy of his rigorist rival in Carthage and that of the anti-pope Novatian in Rome; however, the emphasis is now on legitimating his episcopal ministry as a whole and specifically his exclusive right to administer discipline to the lapsed rather than on the content of what is taught.^[16] Cyprian also laid great emphasis on the fact that any minister who broke with the Church lost ipso facto the gift of the Spirit which had validated his orders. This meant that he had no power or authority to celebrate an efficacious sacrament.^[17]

Apostolic succession as transmission of grace[link]

For the adherents of this understanding of apostolic succession grace is transmitted during episcopal consecrations (the ordination of bishops) by the laying on of hands of bishops previously consecrated within the apostolic succession. This lineage of ordination is traceable, according to "apostolic" churches, to the original Twelve Apostles, thus making the Church the continuation of the early Apostolic Christian community. It is "one of four elements which define the true Church of Jesus Christ"^[18] and legitimizes the ministry of its clergy, as only a bishop within the succession can perform legitimate or "valid" ordinations. Furthermore, only bishops and presbyters (priests) ordained by bishops in the apostolic succession can validly celebrate or "confect" several of the other sacraments, including the Eucharist, reconciliation of penitents, confirmation and anointing of the sick.

Apostolic succession is claimed by the Catholic Church, the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy, some Lutheran churches,^[2] as well as by various smaller groups.^[19] It is also claimed for their churches by some members of the Anglican Communion, but their views are often nuanced and there is widespread reluctance to 'unchurch' Christian bodies which lack it.^[20] Roman Catholics recognize the validity of the apostolic successions of the bishops, and therefore the rest of the clergy, of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and the Old Catholic Church (Union of Utrecht only). The Eastern Orthodox generally recognize Roman Catholic orders, but have a different concept of the apostolic succession as it exists outside of Eastern Orthodoxy.

The lack of it is the primary basis on which Protestant communities are not considered churches by the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church.^[21]

Bases of this position[link]

Those who hold to the importance of episcopal apostolic succession appeal to the New Testament, which, they say, implies a personal apostolic succession (from Paul to Timothy and Titus, for example). They appeal as well to other documents of the early Church, especially the Epistle of St. Clement (see above). ^[22] In this context, Clement explicitly states that the apostles appointed bishops as successors and 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 AD 431), before being divided into the Church of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

The teaching of the Second Vatican Council on apostolic succession^[23] has been summed up as follows:

Bishops have succeeded the apostles, not only because they come after them, but also because they have inherited apostolic power. ... "To fulfil this apostolic mission, Christ ... promised the Holy Spirit to the apostles...". [These were] "enriched by Christ the Lord with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit ... This spiritual gift has been transmitted down to us by episcopal consecration".^[24]

Most Protestants deny the need for this type of continuity^[1][25] and the historical claims involved have been severely questioned; Eric Jay comments that the account given of the emergence of the episcopate in chapter III of Lumen Gentium "is very sketchy, and many ambiguities in the early history of the Christian ministry are passed over" ^[26] Their reasons are given in detail below.

Apostolicity as doctrinal and related continuity[link]

Most Protestant denominations deny the need of maintaining episcopal continuity with the early Church, holding that the role of the apostles was that, having been chosen directly by Jesus as witnesses of his resurrection, they were to be the "special instruments of the Holy Spirit in founding and building up the Church".^[27] The Church is "built upon 'the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles' (Ephes. ii. 20); but a foundation does not repeat itself".^[27] When the apostles died, they were replaced by their writings.^[28] To share with the apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is to them the only meaningful "continuity". The most meaningful apostolic succession for most Protestants, then, is a "faithful succession" of apostolic teaching.

The 1937 British Methodist Conference located the "true continuity" with the Church of past ages in:

"the continuity of Christian experience, the fellowship in the gift of the one Spirit; in the continuity in the allegiance to one Lord, the continued proclamation of the message; the continued acceptance of the mission;..." [through a long chain which goes back to the] "the first disciples in the company of the Lord Himself ... This is our doctrine of apostolic succession" [which neither depends on, nor is secured by,] "an official succession of ministers, whether bishops or presbyters, from apostolic times, but rather by fidelity to apostolic truth".^[29]

Max Thurian describes the classic Reformed/Presbyterian concept of apostolic succession in the following terms. "The Christian ministry is not derived from the people but from the pastors; a scriptural ordinance provides for this ministry being renewed by the ordination of a presbyter by presbyters; this ordinance originates with the apostles, who were themselves presbyters, and through them it goes back to Christ as its source."^[30]. However, in itself:

"it does not guarantee the continuity and faithfulness of the Church. A purely historical or mechanical succession of ministers, bishops or pastors would not mean ipso facto true apostolic succession in the church, Reformed tradition, following authentic Catholic tradition, distinguishes four realities which make up the true apostolic succession, symbolized, but not absolutely guaranteed, by ministerial succession."^[31]

These realities form a "composite faithfulness" and are (i) "perseverance in the apostolic doctrine"; (ii) "the will to proclaim God's word"; (iii) "communion in the fundamental continuity of the Church, the Body of Christ, the faithful celebration of Baptism and the Eucharist"; (iv) "succession in the laying on of hands, the sign of ministerial continuity".^[31]

Objections to the transmission of grace theory[link]

Protestants have objected that this theory is not explicitly found in Scripture^[32] and the New Testament uses 'bishop' and 'presbyter' as alternative names for the same office.^[32]. Furthermore, it is not clearly found in the writings of the Fathers before Augustine in the fourth century and attempts to read it back as implicit in earlier writers^[33] are flawed because it is possible to show that significant changes occurred.

For example, Barrett points out that the Pastoral Epistles are concerned that ministers of the generation of Timothy and Titus should pass on the doctrine they had received to the third generation. Teaching and preaching are "the main, almost the only, activities of ministry." However, in Clement of Rome ministerial activity is liturgical: the undifferentiated 'presbyter-bishops' are to "make offerings to the Lord at the right time and in the right places" something which is simply not defined by the evangelists. More significant still is the change in the use of sacrificial language: for Paul the Eucharist is a receiving of gifts from God, the Christian sacrifice is the offering of our bodies (Romans 12).<Barrett, C.K. Church, Ministry and Sacraments in the New Testament Paternoster Press: 1993, p.92f</ref> Moving on to Ignatius of Antioch, Barrett states that here we find a sharp distinction between 'presbyter' and 'bishop': the latter now stands out as "an isolated figure" who is to be obeyed and without whom it is not lawful to baptise or hold a love-feast.<Barrett, C.K. Church, Ministry and Sacraments in the New Testament Paternoster Press: 1993, p.94f</ref> He also points out that when Ignatius writes to the Romans, there is no mention of a bishop of the Roman Church, "which we may suppose had not not yet adopted the monarchical episcopate."<Barrett, C.K. Church, Ministry and Sacraments in the New Testament Paternoster Press: 1993, p.95</ref> Jalland comes to a similar conclusion and locates the change from the "polyepiscopacy" of the house churches in Rome to monepiscopacy as occurring before the middle of the second century.^[34]

Similar objections are voiced by Harvey who comments that there is a "strong and ancient tradition" that the presence of an ordained man is necessary for the celebration of the Eucharist. But, there is "certainly no evidence for this view in the New Testament" and in the case of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch the implication is not that it cannot be celebrated by anyone else, but that it ought not. In the third century, this "concern for propriety" begins to be displaced by the concept of 'power' to do so which means that in the absence of such a man it is "literally impossible" for a Eucharist to be celebrated.^[35]

Churches claiming apostolic succession[link]

Churches that claim the historic episcopate include the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Independent Catholic, the Anglican Communion, and several Lutheran Churches (see below). The first five churches listed above teach that the apostolic succession is maintained through the consecration of their bishops in unbroken personal succession back to the apostles or at least to leaders from the apostolic era.^[36] The Anglican Communion (see below) and those Lutheran Churches which claim apostolic succession do not specifically teach this but exclusively practice episcopal ordination.

These churches generally hold that Jesus Christ founded a community of believers and selected the apostles to serve, as a group, as the leadership of that community.

Catholic Church[link]

In Roman Catholic theology, the doctrine of apostolic succession states that Christ gave the full sacramental authority of the Church to the Twelve Apostles in the sacrament of Holy Orders, making them the first bishops. By conferring the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders on the apostles, they were given the authority to confer the sacrament of Holy Orders on others, thus consecrating more bishops in a direct lineage that can trace its origin back to the Twelve Apostles and Christ. This direct succession of bishops from the apostles to the present day bishops is referred to as apostolic succession. Papal primacy is different though related to apostolic succession as described here. The Catholic Church has traditionally claimed a unique leadership role for the Apostle Peter, believed to have been named by Jesus as head of the Apostles and as a focus of their unity, who became the first Bishop of Rome, and whose successors inherited the role and accordingly became the leaders of the worldwide Church as well. Even so, Catholicism acknowledges the papacy is built on apostolic succession, not the other way around. As such, apostolic succession is a foundational doctrine of authority in the Catholic Church.^[38][39]

Catholicism holds that Christ entrusted the Apostles with 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 and the written portion, which is Scripture). The apostles then passed on this office and authority by ordaining bishops to follow after them.^{[citation needed]}

Roman Catholic theology holds that the apostolic succession effects the power and authority to administer the sacraments except for baptism and matrimony. (Baptism may be administered by anyone and matrimony by the couple to each other). Authority to so administer such sacraments is passed on only through the sacrament of Holy Orders, a rite by which a priest is ordained (ordination can be conferred only by a bishop). The bishop, of course, must be from an unbroken line of bishops stemming from the original apostles selected by Jesus Christ. Thus, apostolic succession is necessary for the valid celebration of the sacraments today.^{[citation needed]}

In the early 18th century, Pope Benedict XIII, whose orders were descended from Scipione Rebiba, personally consecrated at least 139 bishops for various important European sees, including German, French, English and New World bishops. These bishops in turn consecrated bishops almost exclusively for their respective countries causing other episcopal lineages to die off.^[40]

Roman 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. Rome does not recognize any Anglican orders as valid. This conflict stems over the Anglican Church's revision of its rite of ordination for its bishops during the 16th century. Most of today's Anglican bishops would trace their succession back through a bishop who was ordained with the revised form and thus would be viewed as invalid. However, all Anglican bishops in Europe today^[41] can claim a line of succession through bishops who had only been ordained through the old rite. This was achieved through several different means: ordinations by the schismatic Catholic bishops of the Old Catholic and Independent Catholic Churches who converted to Anglicanism. This has not affected the official Roman opinion in any way since their objection was based fundamentally on the intention of the rite and the question has been further complicated by the ordination of women which as seen as implying that, in ordination, the Anglican Communion does not intend to do what the Roman Catholic Church does.^[42]

On 29 June 2007, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the prefecture of Cardinal William Levada, explained why apostolic succession is integral to, and indeed, "a constitutive element" of the Catholic Church.^[21] The Vatican was asked why the Second Vatican Council and all Catholic statements before and after the Council do not consider Protestant Christian Communities as Churches. The Vatican responded that "according to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'Churches' in the proper sense".^[21]

Debate over 'bishop' role in apostolic succession a church-dividing issue[link]

According to liberal Catholic theologian Richard P. McBrien, debate over the role of "bishop" in apostolic succession is a church-dividing issue. He calls for rejection of what he terms the passing-the-baton theory which he characterizes as "an overly simplistic, mechanistic notion." McBrien says many Catholics accept the commonly-understood definition of the doctrine; specifically, the claim that each validly ordained Catholic bishop can trace his episcopal consecration in an unbroken line back to one of the original apostles or to the apostles, collectively. He quotes Jesuit Professor Francis Sullivan's two reasons for opposing such a view:

• The apostles were not bishops in the present-day meaning of the word. They were missionaries and founders of local churches.
• Second, while some local churches had pastoral leaders who were called bishops, ^{[Ac 20:17-35]} it remains unclear whether these “bishops” were appointed or ordained by the apostle Paul, or by any other apostle.

McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, has no complaint with the succession doctrine, but with the way it is so often explained. He says that Catholic theologians today would point to Vatican II’s declaration that apostolic succession is “by divine institution” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church). McBrien maintains this interpretation should not be understood to mean that Christ explicitly determined the episcopal structures of either the local churches or dioceses. Boston College theologian Francis Sullivan says that “apostolic succession in the episcopate remains a church-dividing issue,” a source of debate even within the Catholic Church. There are the differing interpretations offered by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the one side, and by many Catholic theologians on the other.^[43] Of course, from a Catholic point of view, the bishops in communion with the Pope (the Church's Magisterium) have the final say in the matter, as they, not theologians, are the successors of the Apostles and have doctrinal authority.

Orthodox Churches[link]

Orthodox Christians view apostolic succession as an important, God-ordained mechanism by which the structure and teaching of the Church are perpetuated. While Eastern Orthodox sources often refer to the bishops as "successors of the apostles" under the influence of Scholastic theology, strict Orthodox ecclesiology and theology hold that all legitimate bishops are properly successors of Peter.^[44] This also means that presbyters (or "priests") are successors of the apostles. As a result, Orthodox theology makes a distinction between a geographical or historical succession and proper ontological or ecclesiological succession. Hence, the bishops of Rome and Antioch can be considered successors of Peter in a historical sense on account of Peter's presence in the early community. This does not imply that these bishops are more successors of Peter than all others in an ontological sense.^[45]

According to ancient canons still observed with the Orthodox communion, a bishop must be consecrated by at least three other bishops; so-called "single handed ordinations" do not exist. Moreover, bishops are never ordained "at large" but only for a specific Eucharist community, in due historical and sacramental succession.^{[citation needed]}

Traditional Western churches as seen by Eastern churches[link]

The Eastern Orthodox have often permitted non-Orthodox clergy to be rapidly ordained within Orthodoxy as a matter of pastoral necessity and economia. Priests entering Eastern Orthodoxy from Oriental Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have usually been received by "vesting" and have been allowed to function immediately within Eastern Orthodoxy as priests. Recognition of Roman Catholic orders by the Russian Orthodox Church was stipulated in 1667 by the Synod of Moscow,^[46] but this position is not universal within the Eastern Orthodox communion. The validity of a priest's ordination is decided by each autocephalic Orthodox church.^[47]

In addition to a line of historic transmission, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches additionally require that a person who holds a high position in a hierarchy maintain Orthodox Church doctrine, which they hold to be that of the apostles and communion with other Orthodox bishops.^{[citation needed]}

The Armenian Apostolic Church, which is one of the Oriental Orthodox churches, recognizes Roman Catholic episcopal consecrations without qualification.^{[citation needed]}

Some Eastern Christians hold that the Western papal Catholic Church lost all claim to apostolic succession by an illegitimate addition of the Filioque clause to the Nicene Creed incorporated by the Western church, which began with the teachings of Augustine. They see the rift as resulting in the loss of apostolic succession in the western churches.^{[citation needed]} This is a minority view, however.

Apostolic Founders[link]

The Patriarchate of Constantinople claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Andrew.

The Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Peter.

The Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Mark^[48]

The Russian Orthodox Church claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Andrew^[49]

The Armenian Apostolic Church claims unbroken succession to the Thrones of Saint Bartholomew and Saint Jude Thaddeus^[50]

The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Mark^[51]

The Assyrian Church of the East claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Thomas^[52]

The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church claims succession to the Throne of Saint Thomas^[53]

The Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church claims succession to the Throne of Saint Thomas

The Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church claims succession to the Throne of Saint Peter through the acceptance of the Syriac Patriarch of Antioch.

The Orthodox Church of Cyprus claims unbroken succession to the Throne of Saint Barnabas^[54]

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims succession to the Throne of Saint Philip the Evangelist^[55]

The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem claims succession to the Throne of Saint James the Just,^[56] although this line includes Patriarchs in exile.^[57] (see Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem )

The Syriac Orthodox Church claims succession to the Throne of Saint Peter,^[58] who is called the "Chief of the Apostles".

The Roman Papacy of the Catholic Church claims unbroken succession to the Chair of Saint Peter, who is called by them the "Prince of the Apostles".

Anglican Churches[link]

The Anglican Communion "has never officially endorsed any one particular theory of the origin of the historic episcopate, its exact relation to the apostolate, and the sense in which it should be thought of as God given, and in fact tolerates a wide variety of views on these points".^[59] Its claim to apostolic succession is rooted in the Church of England's evolution as part of the Western Church.^[60] Apostolic succession is viewed not so much as conveyed mechanically through an unbroken chain of the laying-on of hands, but as expressing continuity with the unbroken chain of commitment, beliefs and mission starting with the first apostles; and as hence emphasising the enduring yet evolving nature of the Church.^[61] The Anglican—Roman Catholic International Commission report expressed broad agreement in the nature of apostolic succession as the ‘effective sign’ of the apostolicity of the whole people of God, living in fidelity to the teaching and mission of the apostles.^[62]

When Henry VIII broke away from the jurisdiction of Rome in 1533/4, the English Church retained the episcopal polity and apostolic succession inherent in its Catholic past. Until Henry's death in 1547, it continued to adhere to the traditional doctrinal and liturgical norms; however, Protestant theology gained a certain foothold^[63] and under his successor, Edward VI what had been an administrative schism became a Protestant reformation under the guiding hand of Thomas Cranmer.^[64] Although care was taken to maintain the unbroken sequence of episcopal consecrations, particularly in the case of Matthew Parker,^[65] apostolic succession was not seen as a major concern: English Reformers such as Richard Hooker rejected the Catholic position that Apostolic Succession is divinely commanded or necessary for true Christian ministry.^[66] The foreign reformed (presbyterian) churches were genuine ones despite the lack of apostolic succession because they had been abandoned by their bishops at the Reformation.^[67] In very different ways both James II and William III of England made it plain that the Church of England could no longer count on the 'godly prince' to maintain its identity and traditions and the 'High Church' clergy of the time began to look began to look to the idea of apostolic succession as a basis for the church's life. For William Beveridge (Bp of St Asaph 1704-8) the importance of this lay in the fact that Christ himself is "continually present at such imposition of hands; thereby transferring the same Spirit, which He had first breathed into His Apostles, upon others successively after them".,^[68] but the doctrine did not really come to the fore until the time of the Tractarians.^[69]

Newman writing of the apostolic succession stated: "We must necessarily consider none to be really ordained who has not been thus ordained". After quoting this,^[70] Michael Ramsey continues: "With romantic enthusiasm, the Tractarians propagated this doctrine. In doing so they involved themselves in some misunderstandings of history and in some confusion of theology". He goes on to explain that they ascribed to early Anglican authors a far more exclusive version of the doctrine than was the case, they blurred the distinction between succession in office (Irenaeus) and succession in consecration (Augustine); they spoke of apostolic succession as the channel of grace in a way that failed to do justice to His gracious activity within all the dispensations of the New Covenant.^(p. 111) Newman, and after him, Charles Gore held that the episcopate was passed down from the apostles through men like Timothy and Titus to single bishops in particular localities (monarchial episcopacy). However Bp. Lightfoot argued that monarchial episcopacy evolved upwards from a college of presbyters by the elevation of one of their number to be the episcopal president^(p. 116) and A.C Headlam laid great stress on Irenaeus' understanding of succession (see above) which had been lost from sight behind the Augustinian 'pipe-line theory'.^{(pp. 117,18)}

Orthodox judgements on Anglican Orders[link]

In the 20th century there have been a variety of positions taken by the various Eastern Orthodox Churches on the validity of Anglican orders. In 1922 the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized them as valid.^[71] He wrote: "That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders."

Succeeding judgements, however, have been more conflicting. The Eastern Orthodox churches require a totality of common teaching to recognize orders and in this broader view find ambiguities in Anglican teaching and practice problematic. Accordingly, in practice Anglican clergy who convert to Orthodoxy are treated as if they had not been ordained and must be ordained in the Eastern Orthodox communion as would a lay person.^[72]

Roman Catholic judgements on Anglican Orders[link]

In the Catholic Church, Pope Leo XIII stated in his 1896 bull Apostolicae Curae that the Catholic Church believes specifically that the Anglican Church's consecrations are "absolutely null and utterly void" because of changes made to the rite of consecration under Edward VI, thus denying that Anglicans participate in the apostolic succession. Anglican clergy, then, are ordained as Catholic priests upon entry into the Catholic Church.^{[citation needed]}

A reply from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York (1896) was issued to counter Pope Leo's arguments: Saepius Officio: Answer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Bull Apostolicae Curae of H. H. Leo XIII.^[73] It was argued in their reply that if the Anglican orders were invalid, then the Roman orders were as well:

For if the Pope shall by a new decree declare our Fathers of two hundred and fifty years ago wrongly ordained, there is nothing to hinder the inevitable sentence that by the same law all who have been similarly ordained have received no orders. And if our Fathers, who used in 1550 and 1552 forms which as he (the Pope) says are null, were altogether unable to reform them in 1662, (Roman) Fathers come under the self-same law. And if Hippolytus and Victor and Leo and Gelasius and Gregory have some of them said too little in their rites about the priesthood and the high priesthood, and nothing about the power of offering the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Church of Rome herself has an invalid priesthood...^[74]

However, Catholics argue, this argument does not consider the sacramental intention involved in validating Holy Orders. In other words, Catholics believe that the ordinands were reworded so as to invalidate the ordinations because the intention behind the word substitution was a fundamental change in Anglican understanding of the priesthood.^{[citation needed]}

It is Roman Catholic doctrine that the teaching of Apostolicae Curae is a truth to be "held definitively", as evidenced by commentary by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, currently Pope Benedict XVI:

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...^[75]

"While firmly restating the judgment of Apostolicae Curae that Anglican ordination is invalid, the Catholic Church takes account of the involvement, in some Anglican episcopal ordinations, of bishops of the Old Catholic Church of the Union of Utrecht who are validly ordained. In particular and probably rare cases the authorities in Rome may judge that there is a 'prudent doubt' concerning the invalidity of priestly ordination received by an individual Anglican minister ordained in this line of succession." This was a statement issued by Cardinal Basil Hume to explain the conditional character of his ordination of Graham Leonard, former Anglican bishop of the Diocese of London, to the priesthood,^[76] but is not widely endorsed. Since Apostolicae Curae was issued many Anglican jurisdictions have revised their ordinals, bringing them more in line with ordinals of the early Church. The Nag's Head Fable discrediting Matthew Parker's ordination was dismissed as an invention long before the issuance of Apostolicae Curae.

Timothy Dufort, writing in The Tablet in 1982, argued that by 1969 all Anglican bishops had acquired apostolic succession fully recognized by Rome,^[41] since from the 1930s Old Catholic bishops (whose orders Rome recognizes as valid) have acted as co-consecrators in the ordination of Anglican bishops. This view is not accepted by the Roman Catholic Church itself, which continues to require that Anglican clergy be ordained absolutely (not conditionally) if they are to exercise a ministry in that church.

Porvoo Communion of Churches[link]

Negotiated at Järvenpää, Finland, and inaugurated with a celebration of the eucharist at Porvoo Cathedral in 1992, this agreement of unity includes the mutual recognition of the traditional apostolic succession among the following Churches:

• Lutheran Churches: Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland, Church of Norway, Church of Sweden, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Lithuania, Church of Denmark, observer: Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia.^[77]

• Anglican Communion: Church of Ireland, Scottish Episcopal Church, Church of England, the Church in Wales, the Lusitanian Catholic Apostolic Evangelical Church, and the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church.

Of note is the fact that at least one of the Scandinavian Lutheran Churches in the Porvoo Communion of Churches, the Church of Denmark has bishops, but strictly speaking they were not in the historic apostolic succession prior to their entry into the Porvoo Communion, since their Episcopate and Holy Orders derived from Dr. Johannes Bugenhagen, who was a pastor, not a bishop.^[78] In 2010, the Church of Denmark joined the Porvoo Communion of Churches.

Lutheran churches[link]

Wide variations exist within Lutheranism on this issue. Most Lutheran churches in Scandinavian countries (see immediately above and below) are favorable to the traditional doctrine of apostolic succession. Others de-emphasize it, e.g., many German Lutheran churches in former Prussian lands, resulting from their state-ordered with Reformed (Calvinist) churches in 1817.^[79]

Lutheran Claims to Apostolic Succession[link]

In Scandinavia, most Lutheran churches participating in the Porvoo Communion,^[80] those of Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, and Lithuania, believe that they ordain their bishops in the apostolic succession in lines stemming from the original apostles.^[81][82] This view is not supported by the Roman Catholic Church,^[83] nor by all of Orthodoxy. Two other Lutheran churches of Scandinavia, those of Denmark and Latvia, were observers at Porvoo.

Similarly, in the High Church Lutheranism of Germany, some religious brotherhoods like Hochkirchliche St. Johannes-Bruderschaft and Hochkirchlicher Apostolat St. Ansgar have managed to arrange for their own bishop to be re-ordained in apostolic succession. The members of these brotherhoods do not form into separate ecclesia.^{[citation needed]}

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, North America's largest Lutheran body, became united in the historic episcopate of the Episcopal Church in 2000, upon the signing of Called to Common Mission. By this document the full communion between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Episcopal Church was established.^[84] The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is headed by a presiding bishop who is elected by the churchwide assembly for a six year term.^[85]

In recent years a number of Lutheran churches at the most Catholic edge of the Evangelical Catholic High Church Lutheran spectrum in the United States of America have accepted the doctrine of apostolic succession and have successfully recovered it, generally from Independent Catholic Churches.^[86] At present, most of these church bodies have memberships numbering in the hundreds.

• The Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church, claiming to represent the earliest Lutherans in America, has autonomous and congregationally-oriented ministries and believes it consecrates deacons, priests and bishops in valid and historic apostolic succession. This must be done through the laying on of hands during the celebration of Holy Communion.^[87]

• The Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church recovered the apostolic succession from Old Catholic and Independent Catholic churches, and adopted a strict episcopal polity. All of its clergy have been ordained (or re-ordained) into the historic apostolic succession.^[88] This Church was formed in 1997, with its headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri.^[89]

• The Lutheran Orthodox Church, founded in 2004 by former members of the Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church, traces its historic lineage of apostolic succession through Anglican, Lutheran, and Old Catholic lines.^[90] Later that year other bishops of the LEPC, including its then newly elected Presiding Bishop, the Rev. Nancy Drew, were consecrated by Bishops Guido and Copp of the LOC, and others.^{[citation needed]} The two church bodies remain on amicable terms.

• The Lutheran Church-International is another North American Lutheran church which reports that it has recovered the historic apostolic succession.^[86]

Indifference to the issue[link]

Many German Lutherans appear to demur on this issue, which may be sourced in the church governance views of Martin Luther.^[91] Luther's reform movement, however, usually did not as a rule abrogate the ecclesiastic office of Bishop.^[92][93]

An important historical context to explicate the wide differences among German Lutheran Churches is the Prussian Union of 1817, whereby the secular government directed the Lutheran Churches in Prussia to merge with non-Lutheran Reformed Churches in Prussia. The Reformed Churches generally oppose on principle the traditional doctrine of ecclesiastic Apostolic Succession, e.g., not usually even recognizing the church office of Bishop.^[94] Later in the 19th century, other Lutheran and Reformed congregations merged to form united church bodies in some of the other 39 states of the German Confederation, e.g., in Anhalt, Baden, Bremen, Hesse and Nassau, Hesse-Kassel and Waldeck, and the Palatinate.^[95][96] Yet the partial nature of this list also serves to show that in Germany there remained many Lutherans who never did unite with the Reformed.^[97]

Other Lutheran Churches seem indifferent as a matter of understood doctrine regarding this particular issue of ecclesiastical governance. In America, the conservative Missouri Synod places its church authority in the congregation rather than in the bishop, though its founder, C.F.W. Walther, while establishing congregational polity for the Missouri Synod, did consider Polity (a Church's form of government) to be a matter of adiaphora (something indifferent.)^[98]

The Missouri Synod is, however, not in what it calls "Pulpit and Altar Fellowship" (full communion) with Churches which are not governed by Congregationalist polity. It has its own international communion structure, the International Lutheran Council, the member Churches of which are all of Congregationalist polity.^[99][100]

Beyond indifference, some conservative Lutherans are in principle outright against the traditional doctrine of Apostolic Succession, e.g., Confessional Lutheranism (see also subsection Confessional Lutheranism herein below). Other conservative Lutherans, however, may favor High Church Lutheranism which remains generally favorable to the traditional doctrine of Apostolic Succession (see above).

Methodist Church[link]

In the beginnings of the Methodist movement, adherents were instructed to receive the sacraments within the Anglican Church; however, the Methodists soon petitioned to receive the sacraments from the local preachers who conducted worship services and revivals.^[101] However, the Bishop of London refused to ordain ministers in the British American colonies.^[101] Rev. John Wesley, the founder of the movement, was not prepared to allow unordained preachers to administer the sacraments:^[101] "We believe it would not be right for us to administer either Baptism or the Lord's Supper unless we had a commission so to do from those Bishops whom we apprehend to be in a succession from the Apostles."^[102]

In 1763, Greek Orthodox bishop Erasmus of the Diocese of Arcadia, visited London, where John Wesley had considerable conversation with him,^[103] and ordained several Methodist lay preachers as priests, including John Jones.;^[104] however, there is considerable debate regarding whether he consecrated Rev. John Wesley a bishop or not,^{[105][106][107]} If he was episcopally consecrated, Wesley could not openly announce this without incurring the penalty of the Præmunire Act^{[dubious – discuss]}.^[108] In light of Wesley's episcopal consecration, the Methodist Church can lay a claim on apostolic succession, as understood in the traditional sense.^[109] Since John Wesley ordained and sent forth every Methodist preacher in his day, who preached and baptized and ordained, and since every Methodist preacher who has ever been ordained as a Methodist was ordained in this direct "succession" from Wesley, then the Methodist Church teaches that it has all the direct merits coming from apostolic succession, if any such there be.^[110] This apostolic succession is recognized by Unity Catholic Church, an Independent Catholic Church.^[111]

However, most Methodists view apostolic succession outside its high church sense. This is because John Wesley believed that bishops and presbyters constituted one order,^[112] citing an ancient opinion from the Church of Alexandria.^[112] John Wesley held that, as a presbyter, though not a bishop, he had the power to transmit apostolic succession to others and himself ordained ministers for the United States.^[1] Since the Bishop of London refused to ordain ministers in the British American colonies,^[101] this constituted an emergency, and as a result, on 2 September 1784,^[113] Rev. John Wesley, along with a priest from the Anglican Church and two other elders,^[114] operating under the ancient Alexandrian custom, ordained Thomas Coke a "superintendent", although Coke embraced the title "bishop".^[115] Today, Methodism follows this ancient Alexandrian practice as bishops are elected from and by the order of the presbyterate:^[116] the Discipline of the Methodist Church, in ¶303, affirms that "ordination to this ministry is a gift from God to the Church. In ordination, the Church affirms and continues the apostolic ministry through persons empowered by the Holy Spirit."^[117] It also uses sacred scripture in support of this practice, namely, 1 Timothy 4:12, which states: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."^[118] Methodism also buttresses this argument with the leg of Sacred Tradition of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral by citing the Church Fathers, many of whom concur with this view.^[117][119]

Baptist Church[link]

This section requires expansion.

Latter-day Saints (Mormons)[link]

Bronze statue in Temple Square, Salt Lake City, representing Peter, James, and John in the act of conferring the Melchizedek priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes referred to as Mormons) claim apostolic succession through the process of restoration. According to their teaching, a period of universal apostasy followed the death of the Twelve Apostles.^[120] Without apostles or prophets left on the earth with the legitimate Priesthood Authority, the true teachings and practices of Christianity were lost. Eventually these were restored to the prophet Joseph Smith and various others in a series of divine conferrals and ordinations by angelic men who had held this authority during their lifetimes (see this partial list of restoration events). As it relates to apostolic succession, the apostles Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry sometime in 1829 and conferred upon them the Melchizedek Priesthood (Joseph Smith History 1:72) and with it "the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times" (Doctrine and Covenants 128:20).

Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica[link]

Although no longer Christian, Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, also known as E.G.C., recognizes apostolic succession as a major spiritual tenet. Because E.G.C. has since accepted the Law of Thelema, a religion which claims to supersede Christianity, it is no longer concerned with apostolic succession deriving from Jesus. Instead, apostolic succession in E.G.C. is derived from The Master Therion, known by his civil name as Aleister Crowley and considered by Thelemites to be the Prophet of the Aeon.^[121][122]

Unlike apostolic succession in Christianity, E.G.C. does not claim that Thelemic Succession grants the power to remit and retain sins. Instead, the point of a valid line of succession in E.G.C. is to grant the authority to claim communion and benediction of the Gnostic Saints.^[121]

Protestant denominations that reject the doctrine of apostolic succession[link]

Contra: Doctrinal continuity important, the Ecclesia not[link]

Most Protestants deny the doctrine of apostolic succession, believing that it is neither taught in Scripture nor necessary for Christian teaching, life, and practice. Accordingly, these Protestants strip the notion of apostolic succession from the definition of "apostolic" or "apostolicity." For them, to be apostolic is simply to be in submission to the teachings of the original twelve apostles as recorded in Scripture.^[123] This doctrinal stance reflects the Protestant view of authority, embodied in the doctrine known as Sola Scriptura.

Among the original champions of Protestantism who rejected the doctrine of apostolic succession were John Calvin,^[124] and Martin Luther.^[125] They both said that the episcopacy was inadequate to address corruption, doctrinal or otherwise, and that this inadequacy justified the intervention of the church of common people. In part this position was also necessary, as otherwise there would have been no means to elicit or initiate reform of the church.

In the 20th century, there has been more contact between Protestants and Christians from Eastern traditions which claim apostolic succession for their ministry. Like the Roman Catholic Church, these ancient Eastern churches may use the doctrine of apostolic succession in ministry in their apologetics against Protestantism. Some Protestants feel that such claims of apostolic succession are proven false by the differences in traditions and doctrines between these churches: Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox consider both the Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox churches to be heretical, having been anathematized in the early ecumenical councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) respectively. However, churches that claim apostolic succession in ministry distinguish this from doctrinal orthodoxy, holding that "it is possible to have valid orders coming down from the apostles, and yet not to have a continuous spiritual history coming down from the apostles".^[126]

All Christians who have a genuine relationship with God through and in Christ are part of the "true Church", according to exemplary statements of evangelical Protestant theology, notwithstanding condemnation of the Catholic Church by some Protestants.^[127] According to these statements, claims that one or more denominations might be the "true Church" are nothing more than propaganda which has evolved over centuries to support authoritarian claims---based on tradition or based on scripture---of merely human institutions. Such claims can be found among the worldwide community of Christians. Yet all appear to treasure the truth that liberates, and Jesus taught his followers to love one another.^[128]

Charismatic and British New Church Movement new apostles[link]

Some Protestant charismatic and British New Church Movement 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. The founders or senior leaders of a British New Church Movement group will frequently be referred to as the apostles. Church planting is a key role of these present-day apostles.^{[citation needed]}

Confessional Lutheranism[link]

Confessional Lutheranism rejects Apostolic succession, stating that that there's no evidence the Popes have historic succession from Peter other than their own claim that it is so. Furthermore, they claim that in the Bible there's no evidence showing that the office must be conveyed by laying on of hands and no Biblical command that it must be by a special class of bishops (the laying on of hands is repeatedly used to give a commission to some person in scripture. However, it was done to St. Paul before his missions work, and St. Paul also instructed St. Timothy to not be hasty in laying on hands. Confessional Lutherans claim that the churches claiming apostolic succession have not preserved apostolic doctrine, therefore their leaders have no meaningful apostolic succession.^[129]

See also[link]

Christianity portal

Endnotes and references[link]