# Apostolic succession



## ReformedWretch (Oct 1, 2004)

What is this exactly, and would reformed faiths believe in it? A catholic I am having a discussion with keeps asking me if I have it?


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Oct 1, 2004)

[quote:add8023387="houseparent"]What is this exactly, and would reformed faiths believe in it? A catholic I am having a discussion with keeps asking me if I have it?[/quote:add8023387]Say yes and if they ask you to expand just nod your head as if you dont understand... nah umm... I though Apostolic succession went from pope to pope or have I got it wrong? This topic will be interesting to watch.


----------



## cupotea (Oct 1, 2004)

When a Catholic says his church has 'apostolic succession', what he is saying is that his bishops and especially his Pope have received their office and the 'charism' or gift to fulfill that office through a sacramental laying on of hands called 'Holy Orders'. This office and charism (so the story goes) has been handed down to them in a direct and traceable line from the Apostles, bishop after bishop and Pope after Pope.

It assumes a quasi-magical power in the ritual; the ritual itself confers this charism and office.

As Reformed persons we discount this entirely as only so much hogwash. At the same time, however, we certainly and firmly believe ourselves to be apostolic. Our apostolicity has to do with doctrine though; we have the doctrine of the Apostles and we preach the only-saving Gospel of the Apostles. I, for one will take this over a pseudo-sacramental infusion of some so-called 'succession' any day of the week.


----------



## SmokingFlax (Oct 2, 2004)

I know I was always impressed with how much of that Apostolic Charism was imparted to Rodrigo Borgia (Pope Alexander VI). One look at his sordid life ought to make anyone seriously doubt the contention of "Holy Orders".

And then, of course, there was the "great schism" during the 14th and 15th centuries when there were two and sometimes three "Popes" claiming authority and hurling anathemas at one another.

And then there was....

well you get the picture.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Oct 2, 2004)

Thanks much brothers! I appreciate it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 2, 2004)

Has anybody ever heard of 'Pope Joan'? Any opinions on the historicity of the the first 'female Pope'?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 2, 2004)

I couldn't find "pope Joan" in Schaff (doesn't mean she wasn't there, or didn't exist). He paints the degrading picture of early medieval (A.D. 700-1000) in broad lines, only mentioning some of the offenders by name (and limiting the details he reports from the main Latin sources). Where did you hear about this possibility, VH?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 2, 2004)

[quote:ef077dad57="Contra_Mundum"]I couldn't find "pope Joan" in Schaff (doesn't mean she wasn't there, or didn't exist). He paints the degrading picture of early medieval (A.D. 700-1000) in broad lines, only mentioning some of the offenders by name (and limiting the details he reports from the main Latin sources). Where did you hear about this possibility, VH?[/quote:ef077dad57]

I first heard about Pope Joan in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland magazine. The story goes that her identity was revealed when she gave birth in the midst of a papal procession in Rome. There is even a street supposedly named after this event. There are a lot of article about her on the Web, but most argue that she was a myth or an anti-Catholic fabrication. I tend towards the view that there must be a kernel of truth to this story at least. I personally would not stake an argument against the RCC view of apostolic succession based on Pope Joan, but I find it a fascinating story nevertheless. I adhere to the Protestant view of apostolic succession as articulated earlier that it is the doctrine of the apostles that is upheld in those who truly succeed them. The lives of the Popes as well as Papal doctrine is enough to demonstrate that they did not follow the apostles. Loraine Boettner's book on [u:ef077dad57]Roman Catholicism[/u:ef077dad57] has much to say about that. For more on Pope Joan see: 

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/popeJoan.html


----------



## SmokingFlax (Oct 2, 2004)

The only place that I've ever seen anything about Pope Joan has been from the liberal church crowd and so-called "feminist theology" crowd that wants somehow to legitimize their obviously un-scriptural and un-historical position that women should be allowed leadership positions in the Church. I'm really skeptical that she is anything other than a fabrication.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 2, 2004)

You definitely want to make a distinction between Roman Catholic sucession of popes (their version of apostolic succession) and the ecclisiology of the church (apsotles ordaining elders in every church, elders then ordaining other elders, etc.). The Reformed position is much deeper than that, but over and against apostolic succession of the Roman church, we can still say "yes we do." But it is not magical. It is the operation of the office of eldership as elders (both pastors and teachers) are ordained in every Christian church.


----------



## Scott (Oct 6, 2004)

As Webmaster points out, the doctrine of apostolic succession in Reformed churches is different than Roman Catholic, as we do not see the need for episcopal succession. Yet, it also differs from anabaptists, in that we see that more is needed than doctrine (which is essential). Reformed clergy must be "lawfully" called, which means in virtually all circumstances that there must be proper ordination from the established institutional church. 

This, of course, means that ordination should be traced back to the apostles. Reformed recognize exceptions only for "unavoidable necessity," such as when the institutional church is apostate. This exception is what legitimated the calls of some of the Reformers during the late Catholic tyrany. Still, the Reformers held that ordination in the Catholic church was valid too, applied in Reformed churches, and did not require reordination. Here is a good article from the great Reformer Francis Turretin defending the calls of the first Reformers and explaining the exceptions:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/FrancisTurretin/francisturretincallingreformers.htm

So, proper Reformed churches can, at least in theory, trace their formal lineage (ordinations) back to the apostles. Take the PCA or the OPC, for example. They can trace their lineage back to the Scottish Reformation. The original Scottish reformers had all been ordained by the Roman Church of Scotland or by the Anglican church. So the Reformed Scottish church has presbyteral succession back into the medieval church, and back to the apostles.

Reformers warned people against attending churches whose ministers were not "lawfully" called. Today, this would include most evangelical churches, baptist churches (including Reformed Baptist), etc.

Scott


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 6, 2004)

Scott -

Well said.


----------



## Scott (Oct 6, 2004)

Thanks, and let me know when you finish you essay on the topic. 

Scott


----------



## Goosha (Oct 6, 2004)

Scott wrote:
[quote:f9e2a59b10]Reformers warned people against attending churches whose ministers were not "lawfully" called. Today, this would include most evangelical churches, baptist churches (including Reformed Baptist), etc. [/quote:f9e2a59b10]Wow, this view is definitely not going to win friends and influence people  Have you guys written a little more this topic? I'd be very interested to see how you draw this from scripture and history.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 6, 2004)

I am writing my doctoral dissertation on this beginning in december. I'll let you read when I'm finished...


----------



## Scott (Oct 6, 2004)

Goosha: 

I would look through Turretin's writings. He has other writings on independency (not available online). 

Putting aside doctrine, lawful ordinations I expect can be found in many Protestant churches, including Lutheran, Anglican, and most presbyterian. I don't know enough about methodists, but expect that they will have it too.

Now there is a distinction between the validity of ordination and the lawfulness of it. One can have a valid ordination without it being lawful. 

By way of analogy, an invalid ordination is akin to counterfeit money. It is not real. An unlawful, or illicit ordination, is akin to stolen money. The money is real, just not obtained properly. 

It may be the case that some independent churches have valid but illicit ordinations. 

Scott


----------



## Goosha (Oct 7, 2004)

Thanks Scott,

I'll check it out.


----------



## yeutter (Oct 18, 2004)

The doctrine of Apostolic succession as received by the Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans is not in all respects identical to that of Rome.

Anglicans believe that every true Church should have a three fold ordained ministry; of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. The threefold ordained ministry togather with the ministry of the laity are given by God as instruments of His grace.

Anglicans believe that bishops should be selected from the ranks of presbyters, and presbyters should be selected from the ranks of deacons.
Anglicans believe in Apostolic succession requires that every Presbyter and Deacon be ordained by the laying on of hands of a Bishop. Every Bishop should be consecrated by the laying on of hands of three Bishops. This allows the broader Church to express its consent to a new Bishops consecration. However his consecration is not held invalid if only one Bishop layed hands on him.

Anglicans believe this preserves and unbroken organic connection with the historic Church in all ages.

Martin Luther and many early Reformers differed from the Anglican view in that they fealt the office of presbyter and bishop were on office. Thus they believed the Presbytery could ordain/consecrate new men to that office. John Wesley also expressly held this position.


----------

