Apostolic Succession

Anybody who says that he believes in the Creed to the extent of "one holy catholic and apostolic [succession] church" and yet refuses to believe in the Creed to the extent of "the father, almighty, maker of heaven and earth [sovereign immutable creation and predestination]" is to be immediately disbelieved.

 

Aaytch Bartton...

Let's make things interesting. Can you give us your thoughts on . . . let's say . . . some kind of comparison and contrast of the concepts "apostolic church, " "predestination," and "the elect."

And, of course, please include a few citations to Scripture and theological writings.

Thank you for interest.

...Scottish Monk

 

Scottish Monk.

The various enumerations of the Creeds are of more or less equal importance. The Christian Faith is a revealed religion. If any of the elements are missing in the Creed or if any are taken to be less than absolutely true, then the Credo is proclaimed falsely. For example, an "apostolic church" is meaningless apart from the Creed's Gospel narrative. The Church is precisely made by the hands and Word of the Almighty, immutable God who also made heaven, earth, and time itself. Gen 1:1, John 1:1, Isaiah 37:16. Its purpose is to declare the judgement of the quick and the dead, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting.

These are not the gnostic concepts of Thomas Merton whose focus in on man's alienation from his "inner self ." My point is that when you find someone talking about "apostolic succession" who also claims heaven and earth are shaped by man's will and "transformation of consciousness" rather than by the immutable Word(s) of God made in eternity, incarnate in history and written in a real book, then you know not to listen to him.

• "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." Romans 1:19-21
• "You have abandoned your people, the house of Jacob. They are full of superstitions from the East; they practice divination like the Philistines and clasp hands with pagans."Isaiah 2:6

 

If I may speculate over the reasons why the Creeds were written, it was because there was a tendency in the Church, even as early as the 1st century, to follow the man (someone presumed to be in succession) rather than to follow known apostolic teaching. They were written in order to provide a standard of accountability so that if a "bishop" should claim falsely to be teaching the catholic faith, there would be some means to know whether it was true. "Following the man" was wrong in and of itself (1 Corinthians 3:4 "For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?"). Following a man into heresy is even worse.


Again, the Christian Faith is a revealed religion, eternal and immutable. The Creeds teach us that we know our religion is true because Christ came in the flesh, and left many forms of evidence; His flesh and blood (the wounds he bears even in his risen body), the Bible (His inspired words), and His Church (the continual testimony of His faithful people). This is what the Creeds are all about; making sure that the one revealed and unchangeable Truth is available for all to see, and to combat the false claims of some teachers that they possess some extra or hidden truth. To one degree or another, this is what all the heresies of that day were about; Arianism, Docetism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism, etc.

The reason why "Apostolic Succession" is a false doctrine is because it is completely inconsistent with the Creeds whose entire purpose was to stop the following of human leaders except insofar as their teaching is the same as the teaching of the Apostles.

 

It's not a false doctrine. It's part of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, and it's an integral part of Anglicanism.

 

It's an integral part of some parts of Anglicanism but not an essential doctrine of the Church.

 

Precisely, the creeds were established to govern the natural tendencies of men to follow the traditions of men rather than the catholic teaching of the apostles. As for the CLQ, well that's just too funny.

 

To those that believe in "Apostolic Succession", it is nothing if not essential. You can find it prominently displayed in the founding documents and canons of most of today's "Anglican" churches. But you absolutely will NOT find it in the founding documents and canons where Cranmer had a hand. The fact is that the definition of "Anglican" has changed drastically, and there appears to be no way of going back. So be it; the traditions of men.

 

You guys don't know what you're talking about. You just make stuff up and declare yourselves right about everything.

 

Don't give up Adam, I think you are in the right, our friends are simply looking at these things in to day's light. If apostolic succession, in both order and faith was not so important, why did Laud and the Church in general insist on Orders and Succession in this country and for English Congregations abroad? Even though it drove the Calvinists wild? The trouble was that the Anglicans were obsessed with Rome & Trent and it coloured all their thoughts, just as fascism & Bolshevism live on here today!
Keep it up friend!

 

The reason why Laud enforced episcopacy on the English Church and did not require it for other Churches is that in Reformation ecclesiology a particular or national Church has the right to order itself in the manner it sees fit. It also has the authority to enforce this non-essential item on its own but it does not have the right to assert a non-essential as a universal truth. Hence, Laud's position on episcopacy.

 

Cranmer believed that episcopacy was for the bene esse of the CofE, subject to lay supremacy. But this thread is about the establishment of "Apostolic Succession" for the esse of the CofE, subject to monarchial and/or papal supremacy. This is the Anglo-Catholic position, and we may rightly say that Laud opened the door just enough for it to be established. Cranmer saw it coming and did what he could to stop it, but alas they murdered him. Again, this thread is about "apostolic succession", not episcopacy.

 

There are also different kinds of succession, Hudson. Laud cannot be said to have advocated sacerdotal, apostolic succession when he did not think it was absolutely necessary. There is something like "historical succession" which can also be viewed of as "bene esse" which is what Laud held to. Laud and Cranmer are not as far off as you seem to think. Both were of the opinion that bishops are of the bene esse of the Church but required for ministry in the English Church.

 

That is a self-contradicting statement. The English Church is part of the Church universal, not subject to its own rules. Cranmer would be appalled to hear that he is accused of advocating special consideration for the CofE. He would say that bishops are of the bene esse of the Church... period. He thought the CofE could become more like the Reformed Churches on the Continent in terms of governance, and still remain part of the valid Church, but that it should not. He also held that "apostolic succession" was sheer idolatry.

 

And following the traditions of Cranmer, as you personally interpret them, is NOT following the traditions of men? Nonsense!
You reject today's "Anglican" churches, their founding documents and canonic. And you suggest there is no going back to what you personally consider the real Anglican Church. We ALL follow the traditions of men, as inspired by the Holy Ghost.

So, where does that leave us. I suggest that we can accept the Anglican Church of today or form or join one of the schismatic groups who reject the Anglican churches of today.

For clarity, would someone list the Anglican Churches of today who do NOT accept apostolic succession in their documents and canons. We can nitpick on what we mean by the doctrine, but I believe that the apostolic succession is a doctrine of the vast majority of 21st century Anglicans, defined by their Church documents and canons.

 

Then he was wrong about that.

 

No we don't. Again, please try to understand the difference between esse and bene esse.

Yes, that will be interesting, but it simply begs the question. For you guys, Truth is determined by consensus, tradition, Papal authority. For us it's determined by an outward examination of Scripture, Creeds and Confession. We question each other's epistemology, not merely each other's view of 'succession'. Incidentally, I am aware of only two "Anglican" jurisdictions that buck the status quo; the "Diocese of Sydney" and the "CofE in South Africa"

Post edited. Do not use offensive labels towards fellow forum members.
-Admin

 

Most Anglican churches don't reference apostolic succession in their constitutions or canons.

 

Nonsense, if they reference the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral, then they've taken the bait.