Apostolic Succession

Nonsense. There is a difference between apostolic and historic succession. The former refers to the transfer of sacerdotal power via the laying on of hands from a bishop. The latter refers to establishing a historical line of bishops to the apostles. Very different. You needn't give Tractarians so much credit.

 

In fact, most Tractarians did not approve of the language in the Quadrillateral.

 

A bold claim.

 

Pretty sure that he does understand it.

That's ridiculous.

Apostolic succession involves the historic episcopate. They are inseparable. ACs didn't invent this concept.

 

I don't think that Laud, or any bishop I can think of, certainly know of, thought that Apostolic Succession could be done away with. There has always been discussion as to what would happen if it disappeared from view. These are not much discussed today, but in the past , as I have understood those comments I have read, if Episcopacy was lost during the upheavals of the European,"protestant,' Reformation, it was not the thing to punish the people without ,but they were expected to put their loss right as soon as possible. Certainly immigrants and traders here from the continent were forced by Laud, through S.Charles to accept Episcopal priests and the Prayer book, both here and in Holland, or the Low Countries.The other point of, "Esse & Bene Esse,' is usually the question of whether Bishops, or Episcopacy devolved from Christ or from the Apostles? Either, ay, Christ taught the apostles and the matter was cleared by the College of Apostles and passed on via the apostolic succession. We have no rights to ignore the teachings of Christ, apostles and tradition!

 

Interesting quote, how true?. When I was in South Africa, it was the boast of the C.of E., in South Africa that they had held on to the Apostolic Succession, just like the Free Church of England claim here. There teaching was Calvinist, but theywent out of their way to keep the bishops.

 

How is apostolic succession affected (influenced) by the warden role in a local congregation?

...Scottish Monk

 

Yes, if defined that way, then you are absolutely correct. Although Calvinist Anglican jurisdictions disclaim the need for AS, they still cling to it, perhaps just in case somebody wants to kick them out of the club. Disgusting. I know of no jurisdictions whatsoever that disclaim both the theory and the practice.

 

I understand a succession of the apostolic office (which does not touch men), but I don't understand the distinction you are making between historic and apostolic succession of men. Can you give me an example of how somebody could be in one succession and not in the other?

 

I'd say the Anglican ordinal is the best example of historical succession. It obviously envisions some sort of succession by requiring three bishops to consecrate but it doesn't imply any transferral of sacerdotal powers in the act of consecration.

 

Can you guys pause a bit and talk about sacerdotal powers--what are they, how a priest receives these powers (transferal and act of consecration), how long these powers reside with a Priest, and more . . .

...Scottish Monk

 

Sacerdotal powers!
" Sacerdotalism is the belief that propitiatory sacrifices for sin require the intervention of a priest. That is, it is the belief that a special, segregated order of men, called the priesthood, are the only ones who can intervene directly with god or the gods." (Wiki.)

The authority within the Church in England,(The Anglican Church,) stems from Christ's Revelation and His powers passed on by Him, to the Council of apostles and by them to the Bench, as it were, of bishops.
This our priests accept and do, but note well, there is only One Sacrifice and that is Of Calvary once given, which is continually re-presented before the Father!

 

"We, thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto Thee, the memorial Jesus commanded us to make." The sacerdotal character is thus stamped upon her priests and all their ministrations."
This was a comment by Bishop Grafton, an American bishop. To claim otherwise would be a total distortion and bordering on great error!

 

I don't know what your prayerbook has, but in mine (the 1662 BCP) there is no prayer of oblation such as this. We proceed directly from the Supper to the whole congregation giving thanks. So look who is making the error! I am guessing that you are basing your comments on the American 1928 BCP, which in fact teaches sacerdotalism, but that is NOT proper Anglican doctrine.

 

To use your own word, used in an earlier reply "Rubbish"!
The Church in England claimed to be the Church in England, for some 2000 years all along she has claimed that no departure from Catholic practice, as distinct from Roman additions took place. Sacerdotal authority is implicit, there was never any need to do anything, it was not challenged except by Dissenters.

 

This is rich coming from someone who is an Anglo Reformed. Friend, you are entitled to your own views, but they are not mine! The 1662 as far as I can tell was simply used,or concocted, because the Church had been defeated in a terrible civil war and was restored by God's Grace and not its own endevours. It came back, as they do say, because the calvinist set up fell apart from their own inadequacies. But they left the finest and best trained army in Europe behind them and the idea was to have an adequate prayer book, without upsetting too far the enemy's protestant ideas. In essence, the population was so far fed up with Calvinism and wanted a change that we could have got away with the 1549 or the 1637, both of which were considered more satisfactory than 1662! Even to day 1662 is tolerated only because of its 400 years life span.

I use the 1662, but on important occasions, I switch to the 1549 which I consider the better one.

 

If I am not mistaken, the theology of the 1549, to the extent that it differs from the 1662, is at least officially illegal in the CofE. You can prefer whatever you want, and I'm sure that Anglicanism as it is practiced these days will be kind to you.


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

 

Dear Friend, I'm not in the Cof E, but the Continuing Church, I'm in the Communion of the ACC.

Post edited for continuity with the preceding.
-Admin

 

Point me to where sacerdotal powers are transferee in the 1662 Ordinal.

The 1928 Oblation is not sacerdotal, it offers the elements not the body and blood of Jesus. A weak oblation is implied in the 1662 in the offertory.

 

Anglicanism has apostolic succession built in, but the only 'feature' of this succession is a true and valid history of bishops upon an ordination of an ordinand.

That is the only valid and real meaning for apostolic succession: it makes one's ordination valid. Sacerdotal powers are simply a feature of the office.

I see those two terms thrown about, especially among those with seminary backgrounds, but where is the formal definition of those two terms?