click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Evangelicals: Lets Rethink Apostolic Succession
by C Michael PattonOctober 15th, 2008
72 Comments
I am an ordained minister. I was formally ordained in 2001 at Stonebriar Community Church under the guidance and leadership of Chuck Swindoll. Formally, I cannot trace my ministerial lineage back any further. I don’t know who ordained Chuck. Maybe it was Dwight Pentecost? If it was, that is as far back as I can go. It is not too impressive to some, I know, but I believe that my ordination is legitimate nonetheless. I will return to this in just a moment. . . .
I am a committed Evangelical. Even with the talk of its demise (which always seems premature and overstated), I believe that Evangelicalism continues to maintain the fullest and purest expression of the Gospel. Having said this, Evangelicalism is certainly not without its problems. We have difficulty defining ourselves and we have difficulty regulating from within. Both of these problems are interrelated.
Being an Evangelical is supposed to carry with it an internal assumption that the Gospel is being proclaimed in a way that is true to the Scriptures. However, we have a problem regulating what “being true to the Scriptures” actually means. Where do we go to make sure that we are being true to the Scriptures? Billy Graham? Jonathan Edwards? John Wesley? John Calvin? Martin Luther? St. Augustine? St. Irenaeus? While these leaders may provide a regulatory force in some sense, there is no pressure—real pressure—for Evangelicals to look toward anyone for their regulation. In fact, many Evangelicals are completely ignorant of any lineage whatsoever. Therefore, Evangelicalism turns upon the attendance of the name bearer and this name bearer can have absolutely no connection to the historic Christian faith. Yet, at the same time, this person can proclaim himself to be a member in good standing in the Evangelical community.
I have commented before on the need for the Evangelical church to have a higher degree of accountability. This accountability cannot be anything with an institutional formality as there will never be a formal structure to a trans-traditional entity such as Evangelicalism (nor should there be). Yet accountability does not need formality to be functional, it can be assumed.
Some would look at my ordination into ministry as an exercise in futility. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans would all reject my claim to ministerial status. These all have a ministerial ordination structure that relies on what is called “Apostolic Succession.” You cannot be a minister without it. In the sense that these traditions define apostolic succession, I, indeed, am not qualified to be a minister. I don’t have their type of apostolic succession.
Basic Origins of Apostolic Succession
The idea of apostolic succession first came to prominence in the history of the church as a functional way of combating heresy. Irenaeus was among the first to refer to apostolic succession as he battled the Gnostics of his day. In contention for the truth of Christianity, both Irenaeus and his opponents were referring to the Scriptures to justify their claims to truth. But Irenaeus referred to more than just the Scripture to make his stand; he referenced his lineage of faith. In essence, he argued that his view of Christ was true because he could trace his beliefs back to the Apostles’ teaching. He did not simply use the Scriptures, but he also referred to those who have gone before him and traced their teaching back to the Apostles. His opponents, on the other hand, could not boast of such a lineage. They devised doctrine of their own imagination, disregarding the fact that their beliefs were never held by any before them. If it is new, according to Irenaeus, then it is, by virtue of its novelty, not admissible as a viable option for belief. The Holy Spirit works in and with the church and the church is made up of those living (ecclesia militans) and dead (ecclesia triumphans). Therefore, those who have gone before us create an accountability structure and we cannot separate ourselves from their testimony, even if we believe the Bible is on our side. In other words, the Holy Spirit is not going to teach something essentially different to the present church than he did to those who have gone before us—no matter how special you think you are.
Thus Irenaeus birthed what is now known as apostolic succession. We have the true Christian faith because we can trace it back to the Apostles. Our faith is dependant upon our lineage.
I agree with this concept very much. I believe in apostolic succession. I don’t think we emphasize this concept enough (if at all) in Evangelicalism. In fact, I agree with Orthodox theologian Bradley Nassif who says that the biggest problem he sees in Evangelicalism is that we have “historic amnesia.” However, I don’t agree that the accountability principle that Irenaeus fought for is necessarily found in or exclusive to Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Anglicans. Each of these traditions place heavy and necessary emphasis on a definition of apostolic succession which necessitates a minister be able to trace his lineage, person by person, in unbroken succession back to the Apostles. Indeed, impressively, each of these traditions can do this. But it does not guarantee anything. This becomes obvious as each one of the traditions can trace their lineage back, yet they all differ substantially on many very important issues.
However, this does not mean that apostolic succession is not needed in a very real sense. I believe that Evangelicals should be able to trace their lineage back to the Apostles. I am not saying that we should be able to do this by carrying around our ministerial genealogy in our back pocket, but we do need to be able to trace our faith, teaching, and doctrine back to the Apostles, finding harmony with those who have gone before us. I believe this is an avocation of apostolic succession in its truest form. It recognizes a succession of teaching, not simply a succession of person and creates an accountability structure that cannot be ignored.
When we ordain ministers, we are not simply advocating their kindness, usefulness, and general likability. Neither are we ordaining them because they are good preachers, counselors, or encouragers. We are first ordaining them because they are representatives of the historic Christian faith. They are successors to the Apostles in that their beliefs and teachings find historical continuity and biblical integrity—the two of which should not be separated.
If we had this type of assumed accountability, to be Evangelical would mean something again. As well, a whole lot of self-proclaimed Evangelicals would fall off the roster due to disqualification. They can then call themselves whatever they please, but “Evangelical” would be taken. This is why I call myself a “Historic Evangelical“. No, I can’t trace my lineage from person to person in unbroken succession back to the Apostles, but I can trace my faith through those who have gone before me. It is to them, through the power of the Spirit, that I am still held accountable. I am in line with the historic Christian faith on all issues that have defined Christianity everywhere, always, by all (ubique, semper, omnibus).
Evangelicals: we need to rethink apostolic succession.
With this now comes a much more serious ordination process within Evangelicalism. But that is the subject of another blog.
Similar Posts:
- Why Evangelicals Need Apostolic Succession
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Six – Apostolic Succession?
- More on Evangelical Apostolic Succession
- “Historic Evangelicalism”: Characteristics of a New Christian Tradition
- Evangelicalism in a Nutshell
Loading ...
72 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
Excellent thoughts as always. Being a baby Presbyterian, my pastor puts a lot of emphasis on this and it sounds odd to me, having only come into Presbyterianism in the past year. But it is something that demands more of our attention.
I was going through Titus last night with my wife and we were at 1:9, which says: “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”
She asked me, “How can we know what is being taught is true?” I think the answer lies in this verse,. The key is this chain. Titus (and all pastors) are commanded first to hold fast to the trustworthy word as taught. This means that it isn’t the pastor’s job to reinvent new doctrines for originality’s sake. Then, one of the reasons he is to hold fast is to teach that sound doctrine to others. So, he takes the sound doctrine he received and passes it on to the one he teaches, adding or taking away nothing he was taught (insofar as it has not erred, a process which I am not fully sure of right now). In this verse, people are necessarily the teachers and the students, but what is being passed is the teaching. As you said, if we merely trace the lineage of people, we can trace errors. But if we trace the sound doctrine, hopefully, we will end up somewhere.
Like or Dislike:
0
Great thoughts, Michael. I think that most, if not all evangelical pastors would ascribe to apostolic succession as you describe above. In other words, the claim would be that we hold true what was taught in the early church. And I would dare say that even those who have strayed beyond the bounds of orthodoxy, may affirm that they hold to the original apostolic teachings. So I wonder if the issue is not so much the histriocity but the deviations within it.
Like or Dislike:
0
“I am in line with the historic Christian faith on all issues that have defined Christianity everywhere, always, by all (ubique, semper, omnibus).”
Which would be what? Monotheism?
Like or Dislike:
0
The best place to go would be to the Nicene and Chalcendonian Creeds. There is more than this, but these provide a good starting point.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Some would look at my ordination into ministry as an exercise in futility. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans would ALL reject my claim to ministerial status. These all have a ministerial ordination structure that relies on what is called “Apostolic Succession.” You cannot be a minister without it. In the sense that these traditions define apostolic succession, I, indeed, am not qualified to be a minister. I don’t have their type of apostolic succession.”
Michael.
Sorry, but I have to stop you there! “would ALL reject my claim to ministerial status”. My friend, where have you picked up this nonsense from! ie that “all Anglicans” do not view your ordination vows as valid. I certainly do and many more Andglicans besides me. There may be a certain sector of the Anglican Church (ie High Church/Roman Catholic) who do not view tyour ordination vows as valid but that is not, and I repeat NOT the stance of the Anglican church as a whole. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches almost certainly refuse to accept your ordination vows, so by all means include them, but please do not lump the Anglican church per se in the same bracket. If it was unintentional I’ll accept is as a slip, but if it is not, I have to say that you are sadly misinformed. Sadly I feel that it displays a great ignorance of the practice of rank and file Anglicans whichh I must challeneg because it is not true!
“I agree with this concept very much. I believe in apostolic succession.” So do I, wholehearttedly.
“You cannot be a minister without it. In the sense that these traditions define apostolic succession, I, indeed, am not qualified to be a minister. I don’t have their type of apostolic succession.
Michael. There are many Anglicans who do not subscribe to this intrerpretation of the Apolstolic Succession. It is considered far more of an issue in the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church than it is in the Anglican Church…trust me!!
“However, I don’t agree that the accountability principle that Irenaeus fought for is necessarily found in or exclusive to Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Anglicans.” Michael if you had stopped with a full stop afyer the Eastern Orthodox church I would have been applauding you to the heavens. I find it really strange that you lump all of us us Anglicans in with the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox when the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church state that the vows of Anglican ordinands are invalid because they are not in full communion with the church of Rome and do not submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome and have therefore do not accept that there is a “true”(in their eyes’) apostolic succession.
I know countless Anglican clergy and lay people here in the UK who would fully support, encourage, pray, sit under and long for God’s blessing to be on your ministry. I also know many Anglican clergy who frequently and gladly “pulpit share” with ordained ministers from Independent/non-conformist tradition.
There are countless things you can justifiably accuse us Anglicans of being guilty of, but I think you may find that narrow-mindedness and intolerance tends not to be one of them! If anything we are more often than not accused of being too open-minded and too tolerant. The Anglican church of which I am part of the leadership team work alongside serve alongside and worship alongside when we get the opportunity an Open Brethren Assembly and an Elim Pentecostal Church, both of whose leadership teams/structure/ministry we fully recognise, pray for and support and vice versa and this has been the case for the past decade. There are thousands upon thousands of Anglicans who would be sitting there shaking their heads sadly and saying “what IS he on about” because they would not recognise themselves from your description.
If you know of some doctrinal formulary of the Anglican church that I am aware of then please do let me know, and it would not surprise me if you do, please let me know, and even if there is one, I shall gladly ignore it! I guess you may have been hanging around in theological circles with some Anglo-Catholics who may have looked at you askance on more than a few occasions, but as dar as Iam aware, there is nop official teaching of the Anglican church/tradition which invalidates all other orders.
You have to laugh though don’t you..or you would cry..because if what you said was true, only Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox ordination vows are legityimate (because my understanding is that they accept each others ordination vows) but Anglican ministers and all other denomination ministers are not legitimate. Or on the other hand, if what you say is only Anglican orination vows are legitimate and everyone else’s aren’t, or else God doesn’t distinguish like we do and is more than happy in ways that we sadly never could be!
” Each of these traditions place heavy and necessary emphasis on a definition of apostolic succession which necessitates a minister be able to trace his lineage, person by person, in unbroken succession back to the Apostles.” I am sorry Michael but it does not. When and countless other Anglicans attend an ordination service it is because, like you, a call to ordained munistry has been rercoginised , is being authorised bt the church leadershiop (just as yours was by Chuck Swindoll and his church leadership team) and we want to celebrate it. I know there are some Anglicans who believe that when the Bishop lays hands on the ordinand it is to do with tracing the lineage back to the Apostolic succession but there are very many of us who do not believe that. And anyway, if ths is the case who is right in their lineage, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglcian Church, noen of the above or all of the above!?
“We are first ordaining them because they are representatives of the historic Christian faith. They are successors to the Apostles in that their beliefs and teachings find historical continuity and biblical integrity—the two of which should not be separated.” Amen and Amen again! That is what I and many in my denomination also believe!
“It recognizes a succession of teaching, not simply a succession of person and creates an accountability structure that cannot be ignored.” Again, we are drinking the same flavoured soda!
However, there is one question I would like to ask you in return. Do you recognise the ordinationvosws of those from A Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox/Anglican tradition. Given that many 9though definitely not all) of these traditions nor ordain women and have some for quite some time, is it only the m,male ordination vows of thoose denominations that you recognmse.
One of my key primers of whether an ordained ministry (as well as lay ministries ) aare valid in God;;s sight is the “by their fruit you shall know them” teaching of Jesus. I have had the privilige to asit under the ministry of a number of ordained and lay female leaders and have been gatly enriche and blessed by the ir ministry and having seen them operate have no doubt as to the validityof their calling, But I guess that many whodon’t agree with the ordination of women would only recognise the ordination vows of the men in other deminatiions, if they recognise them at all.
“Evangelicals: we need to rethink apostolic succession.” Michael..trust me w…many of is in the aAnglcian churcu aleady have…and althogu there are things about the ASnfglican Church that drive me mad, we have been freely allowed to do so! The only people who may come down on us like a ton of bricks are some (though by no means all among the Anglo-Catholic fraternity, who acually are often more Roman Catholic in their doctrines and practice than many Roman Catholics actually are!) and those who e staunchlty believe and adhere rigidly to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.
And before people start attacking their keyboards, I belt out the Apostles Creed with everyone else “I believe in the apositolic church – but it is apostolic wit a small a, in the true sense of the word apostle wshhich is sent, missional and any ordained minister who is engaged along with me in the missin of God and his church to the world is fine by me.
Like or Dislike:
0
If you know of some doctrinal formulary of the Anglican church that I am unaware of then please do let me know, and it would not surprise me if you do, , and even if there is one, I shall gladly ignore it!!
I guess you may have been hanging around in theological circles with some Anglo-Catholics who may have looked at you askance on more than a few occasions, but as far as I am aware, there is no “official” teaching of the Anglican church/tradition which invalidates all other orders.
You have to laugh though don’t you..or you would cry..because if what you said was true, only Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox ordination vows are legitimate (because my understanding is that they accept each others ordination vows) but Anglican ministers and all other denomination ministers are not legitimate. Or on the other hand, if what you say true, is only Anglican ordination vows are legitimate and everyone else’s aren’t, (to which I can only say..may God preserve us!) or else God doesn’t distinguish like we do and is more than happy in ways that we sadly never could be!
” Each of these traditions place heavy and necessary emphasis on a definition of apostolic succession which necessitates a minister be able to trace his lineage, person by person, in unbroken succession back to the Apostles.”
I am sorry Michael but it does not! When I and countless other Anglicans attend an ordination service it is because, like you, a call to ordained mnistry has been, after much prayer, reflection and discussion, recoginised , that call is being authorised by the wider church leadership ir the Diocesan Bishop (just as yours was by Chuck Swindoll and his church leadership team) and we want to celebrate it. I know there are some Anglicans who believe that when the Bishop lays hands on the ordinand it is to do with tracing the lineage back to the Apostolic succession but there are very many of us who do not believe that at all. And anyway, if ths is the case who is right in their lineage, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglcian Church, noen of the above or all of the above..or some kind of bizarre mixture!?
“We are first ordaining them because they are representatives of the historic Christian faith. They are successors to the Apostles in that their beliefs and teachings find historical continuity and biblical integrity—the two of which should not be separated.” Amen and Amen again! That is what I and many in my denomination also believe!
“It recognizes a succession of teaching, not simply a succession of person and creates an accountability structure that cannot be ignored.” Again, we are drinking the same flavoured soda!
However, there is one question I would like to ask you in return. Do you recognise the ordination vosws of those from a Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox/Anglican tradition. Given that many (though definitely not all) of these traditions now ordain women and have some for quite some time, is it only the male ordination vows of thoose denominations that you officially recognise?
One of my key primers of whether an ordained ministry (as well as lay ministries ) aare valid in Gods sight is the “by their fruit you shall know them” teaching of Jesus. I have had the privilige to asit under the ministry of a number of ordained and lay female leaders and have been gatly enriche and blessed by the ir ministry and having seen them operate have no doubt as to the validityof their calling, But I guess that many who don’t agree with the ordination of women would only recognise the ordination vows of the men in other deminatiions, if they recognise them at all.
“Evangelicals: we need to rethink apostolic succession.” Michael..trust me w…many of is in the aAnglcian churcu aleady have…and althogu there are things about the ASnfglican Church that drive me mad, we have been freely allowed to do so! The only people who may come down on us like a ton of bricks are some (though by no means all among the Anglo-Catholic fraternity, who acually are often more Roman Catholic in their doctrines and practice than many Roman Catholics actually are!) and those who e staunchlty believe and adhere rigidly to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.
And before people start attacking their keyboards, I belt out the Apostles Creed with everyone else “I believe in the apositolic church – but it is apostolic wit a small a, in the true sense of the word apostle wshhich is sent, missional and any ordained minister who is engaged along with me in the missin of God and his church to the world is fine by me.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
“The best place to go would be to the Nicene and Chalcendonian Creeds. There is more than this, but these provide a good starting point.”
Why those? The Copts and other Oriental Orthodox deny them. So obviously, those creeds were not believed in by everyone, everywhere, and at all times. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that those creeds represent the theology of those churches under the power of the Emperor.
I mean no offense by this, but I think that you’re just jumping on the Thomas Oden bandwagon. It’s the latest fad to conform one’s theology to that of the church fathers. The church fathers did fine, but they also had many hermeneutical flaws. In fact, the dictum of Vincent of Lerins is simply a conversation-stopper/stop-gap used to avoid the predestinarian teaching of Scripture.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think that Oden has some good things to say, but concerning the Vincentian Canon (everywhere, always, by all), I believe that the exceptions cannot create the rule. In other words, simply because their are sects out there that deny certian aspects of the Christian faith does not mean that the Canon has no validity. In fact, this is what the Canon was written for, being that there were those who were outside this canon.
Like or Dislike:
0
Believe it or not what the above should have read..in my defence, (and I am fully aware that it is a fairly desperate one), the message automatically saved in the middle of the third edit.
Evangelicals: we need to rethink apostolic succession.”
Michael..trust me…many of us in the Anglican church already have…and although there are things about the Anglican Church that drive me mad, I genuinely rejoice that we have been freely allowed to do so without fear of reprisals or being chucked out! ! The only people who may come down on us like a ton of bricks are some (though by no means all among the Anglo-Catholic fraternity, …who acually are often more Roman Catholic in their doctrines and practice than many Roman Catholics actually are!) and those who staunchly and rigidly adhere to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. (which is by no means all their members as Catholic/Orthodox doctrine and Catholic/Orthodox practice can differ markedly at the grass roots level.
And before people start attacking their keyboards, I belt out the Apostles Creed with everyone else “I believe in the apositolic church – but it is apostolic with a small “a”, in the true sense of the word apostle which is “sent” as part of a missional missional and any ordained minister who is engaged along with me in the mission of God and his church to the world is fine by me.
Like or Dislike:
0
Brit,
I think that you misunderstand my intent. It was not to criticize the Apostolic succession of RCs, EOs, or Anglicans. In fact, I do believe that there is a reason behind the succession in person model. It is good. All I was saying is that it does not guarantee the succession in teaching. I know that Anglicans understand this. In fact, I think we Evangelicals could learn a lot from the Anglican structure.
This was a criticism to Evangelicals, not a defense of Evangelicalism vis a vis the high church Apostolic Succession model.
Hope that makes sense.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] C. Michael Patton is giving an evangelical’s take on Apostolic succession. This is one area I don’t know that we need to be dogmatic about, but I do think there is something to be said for a sense of accountability to the past. (I can hear all my evangelical Anglican friends right now beckoning me to have my cake and eat it too in their world…) Posted by: Jason Blair @ 12:39 pm | Trackback | Permalink [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Michael
Thanks for your reply.
Please feel to critique the RC/EO/Anglican version of the Apostolic Succession to your heart’s content! It could do with a bit of pistol practice at times in my view. Sounds like you are probably more of an adherent of the Apostolc succession than I am, although like yourself I sort of believe in it in a way, if that makes any sense.
I also know where you are coming from in trying to get Evangelicals to look at themselves a bit more closely. I tend to be one of the those Anglicans who pass a, constructively critical eye over some of its goings on, teachings and practices, although I have do to keep my pwder dry sometimes owing to the fact that our Senior Vicar also happens to double up as one of the two Archdeacons in our Diocese, and as such is part of the Diocesan Core leadership Team!
” All I was saying is that it does not guarantee the succession in teaching. ”
Tell me about it! There are several times when I have been exposed to teaching which bears no resemblance to any form of Apostolic Succession by people who are some of it’s most staunchest advocates.
By the way, apologies if the phrase “nonsense” irked you abit. I was trying an attempt at humour (sort of PG Woodhouse style) but didn’t quite pull it off!
Like or Dislike:
0
Hi Jason
(I can hear all my evangelical Anglican friends right now beckoning me to have my cake and eat it too in to have my cake and eat it too in their world)
You may be pleasantly surprised that… no I don’t begrudge you your large slice of cake
I’m actually quite pleased to see there are evangelicals who even if they don’y fully subscribe to the conept, (like myself incidentally) concede that the concept does have some validity.
So you carry on eating more of that cake!
Like or Dislike:
0
The Oriental Churches hold to Miaphysitism, and it is pretty much a situation of cross language confusion, nature v. person, which is essentially not a problem in regards to Chalcedon. The Orthodox and Roman churches have both declared that it shouldn’t be an divisive issue.
Much has been said about the difficulties in understanding the Greek technical terms used in these controversies. The main words are ousia (οὐσία, ‘substance’), physis (φύσις, ‘nature’), hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) and prosopon (πρόσωπον, ‘person’). Even in Greek, their meanings can overlap somewhat. These difficulties became even more exaggerated when these technical terms were translated into other languages. In Syriac, physis was translated as kyānâ (ܟܝܢܐ) and hypostasis was qnômâ (ܩܢܘܡܐ). However, in the Persian Church, or the East Syriac tradition, qnoma was taken to mean nature, thereby confounding the issue furthermore. The shades of meaning are even more blurred between these words, and they could not be used in such a philosophical way as their Greek counterparts. Hence, some have suggested that miaphysitism came about due to a grounding of language in the fact that someone’s person and nature are a verisimilitude.
However, the Oriental Orthodox do hold to the Nicene creed.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
“I think that Oden has some good things to say, but concerning the Vincentian Canon (everywhere, always, by all), I believe that the exceptions cannot create the rule. In other words, simply because their are sects out there that deny certian aspects of the Christian faith does not mean that the Canon has no validity. In fact, this is what the Canon was written for, being that there were those who were outside this canon.”
But there you are DEFINING them as exceptions. The center of monophysitism was Alexandria, an “apostolic” see and a major center of Christendom. Once you get to DEFINE the minority as a fringe group, then your Canon becomes arbitrary. So, it still seems that your real Canon is “whoever the Emperor did not use his physical power to exile.” Such a Christianity is a Roman Imperial Christianity and not a Biblical Christianity.
Like or Dislike:
0
“The Orthodox and Roman churches have both declared that it shouldn’t be an divisive issue.”
Rome has only said that recently (post VatII), and the Russian Orthodox Church disagrees with the above assessment. Instead, they side with the historic EO position.
Like or Dislike:
0
“However, the Oriental Orthodox do hold to the Nicene creed.”
That’s correct. I should not have put “creeds” in plural.
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil – I’m curious, if Michael were to join the staff of your church, would he be allowed to officiate at the Eucharist without being ordained by an Anglican bishop? I attend an evangelical Anglican church which hires largely from the evangelical world, but every time the pastor coming in had to give up his previous ordination and be ordained within the Anglican church.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
This is a good formulation and presentation. But the departures from “historic evangelic Christianity are quite multifarious. Examples can be found in the revisions of the standards of Westminster and even the Articles of the Church of England.
More blatant examples of misguidance can be seen in the theological naivete even of some posters.
You can’t brook heaven and hell. You can’t flatter people into a false security. You can’t “coexist” when the other guys want you dead.
Homosexual priests, woman in church offices, stalking parishoners, non inerrantists, those who are lonely and view the church as a social club, men pleasers and name dropers are all on unsure ground.
Do you think the KGB agents of the “Living Church” era in the Moscow Patriarchy qualify as apostolic or mere wolves? Do womanizing tele-evangelists or swinging church couples constitute a real affinity with the Apostles in thought, word or deed?
If one wants to be an “historic evangelical” Christian, they will want to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness according to His word (revealed will).
Herein lies the continuity. This is apostolic succession.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, of course, it is only normal that the Orthodox don’t see your ordination as valid for ministry in their (our, in fact) church. You were not ordained by an Orthodox bishop, or a bishop that can be named as such in a historical sense; you were not ordained in order to both teach, shepherd the “rational flock” and offer unto God the “unbloody sacrifice” of the misteries of Christ, as the Orthodox Ordination Ritual puts it.
The reality is that when we use the word “ordination” we mean almost completely different things.
So wht should we recognize about Protestant/Baptist ordinations?
That they are not Orthodox either in form or content, perhaps!
Like or Dislike:
0
Dear CMP,
It is very fortunate to have Saint and Sinner comment periodically on this blog. I do not know him, but I believe that he must be a rather modest fellow who possesses an exceptionally sharp mind for the Lord.
He does not tout his own work, so I shall do it for him. Please click on this link and see how he addresses the issue of apostolic tradition and succession.
Pax.
Like or Dislike:
0
Ok, I’m extremely confused.
Firstly a minor point, it seems extremely speculative to me to say that Irenaeus “birthed” apostolic succession. Being the first extant witness to something, does not mean you birthed it. (And I don’t know if he is anyway, but that’s not the point right now).
But the part I’m confused about is how you can claim apostolic succession – even the succession of belief you adhere to – with the historical church, without choosing some arbitrary cut off point where the early church that you claim succession to ends. Orthodox do not believe in an end to the church fathers. For your theory to work, you have to propose an end date to those who you “find harmony with those who have gone before us”. What is the end date, and why should we believe your end date?
If I wanted to push harder, I would ask you further, why do care to have harmony with the church fathers, wouldn’t it be equally as compelling for you to have harmony with the ancient heretics, Marcion, Arius, gnostics, or any of the others? Without believing in the formal visible church, why do you need succession from those in the One catholic church?
Like or Dislike:
0
If there was a cut off point it would not be the historic Christian faith, by definition. Why would I have to forgoe harmony with the Church Fathers?
Why don’t I identify with heretics? For the same reason you probably don’t—they are not orthodox.
“Without believing in the formal visible church, why do you need succession from those in the One catholic church?”
Because, as I said, it is not a succession of person that ultimately matters (although I don’t discount the relative value of such a practice) since it does not gaurantee anything. Just look at the differences in Orthodox, Anglican, and Roman Catholic, all claiming true succession.
I connected Apostolic succession to historic orthodoxy. For my views on this, see here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/06/an-emerging-understanding-of-orthodox-2/
and especially here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/02/would-the-real-emerging-please-stand-up-part-2-what-is-orthodoxy/
Like or Dislike:
0
Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans would all reject my claim to ministerial status.
Don’t forget the Mormons. They’d reject it too. And on similar grounds.
Like or Dislike:
0
“If there was a cut off point it would not be the historic Christian faith, by definition. Why would I have to forgoe harmony with the Church Fathers?”
So do you claim harmony with St. Theophan the Recluse, also known as “Theophan Zatvornik” (1815–1894) as an example? Do you claim harmony with Orthodox fathers right through to the present day?
Seriously?
For real?
“Why don’t I identify with heretics? For the same reason you probably don’t—they are not orthodox.”
Who said they’re not orthodox? The same people who said they are not orthodox also say that you are not orthodox. If you want to make a personal judgement they are not orthodox, great, but then why do you need their validation for your faith when you are the one validating theirs?
“Because, as I said, it is not a succession of person that ultimately matters (although I don’t discount the relative value of such a practice) since it does not gaurantee anything. Just look at the differences in Orthodox, Anglican, and Roman Catholic, all claiming true succession.”
There is no apostolic succession of any shape or form without persons. I thought you did want to claim an alliance with historic personages?
If Orthodox, Anglican AND Roman Catholic have all got it wrong, then what is this posting all about? What date did we start getting it wrong? But then you just disavowed the existence of any cut off dates.
You don’t see why I am confused?
Like or Dislike:
0
Peter, it has to do with how you are deriving your understanding of “orthodox.” You are, at least in your argument, taking a maximalist approach to orthodoxy. This is causing confusion. I would simply have to defer to the articles I referenced rather than writing out their arguments.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Just look at the differences in Orthodox, Anglican, and Roman Catholic, all claiming true succession.
Couldn’t agree with you more Michael. Which, of the three above are right?
All of them (surely a logical response would be “no”) one of them (possible) or none of them (mre proabl;e than possible).
And just to confirm an earlier post to this thread, this particular Anglican does not subscribe to any “traditionally hed “view of apostoloic succesion. The apostooic ministry I succeed to is the sshared task of the early apostles in being sent out in mission to the world.
DRT
“Britphil – I’m curious, if Michael were to join the staff of your church, would he be allowed to officiate at the Eucharist without being ordained by an Anglican bishop? I attend an evangelical Anglican church which hires largely from the evangelical world, but every time the pastor coming in had to give up his previous ordination and be ordained within the Anglican church.”
You raise an excellent and troublesome point. I will try to answer it as honestly as I can.
As it stands if someone wished to come and join our leadership team and celeraste
ate teh Eucharist, you are right in saying that they would need to be ordained as an Anglican first.
However, I will check this out with my ordained friends on our teambecasue dssomethiong at the back of my mind is niggling at me and ssaying that this may not necessarily the case and that the ordination vows of other denominations may be permissioble in certain circumsatnces. I shall get back to you on this once I have found out.
As you will no doubt be surpriased to hear, if this is the case, which in general it may well be, hen it saddens me considerably. I would have no proble being ministerd to by a celebrant whose vows were whose succession was considered “unapostolic” by my denomination.
However, I do have a question of my own to ask you.
” attend an evangelical Anglican church which hires largely from the evangelical world, but every time the pastor coming in had to give up his previous ordination and be ordained within the Anglican church.
I am guessing that you may be an evangelical Episcopalian in the US, becasue I cannot envisage a situation here in the UK where an evangelicl Anglican church would need to go outside of the evagelcial Anglican fold to appoint a minister. If may do in the case of certain leadership rioles ie Yoputh Pastor but not for those roles which require the person to celebrate at a communion service.
I can only guess that things are a touch grim in evangelcial Anglican circles in your part of the world if you often go “outside the fold” Although the way Bishop Katherine Schorri is going, there won’t be many evangelical Anglicans left in the Eposopalian church following her almost Stalin-like purge of teh evangelcial fold of late.
I have said it before and I will say it again, I am an advocate of women’s ordiantion including to the role of Bishopric, but I think that Bishop Schorri has damaged the cause considerably with her actions of late. As with all appointments to the Bishopric, whether male of females, it must be the right person who is both anointed and appointed.
Like or Dislike:
0
Posting again because of yet more editing problems…this time it would not allow me to edit! maybe it had decided it had experienced enough of me…not unlike many of you I guess!!
“Just look at the differences in Orthodox, Anglican, and Roman Catholic, all claiming true succession.”
Couldn’t agree with you more Michael. Which, of the three above are right?
All of them (surely a logical response would be “no”); one of them (possibly) or none of them (more proable than possible!).
And just to confirm an earlier post to this thread, this particular Anglican does not subscribe to any “traditionally held “ view of apostoloic succession. The apostoloic ministry I succeed to and involve myself with is the shared task of in being sent out in mission to the world.
DRT
“Britphil – I’m curious, if Michael were to join the staff of your church, would he be allowed to officiate at the Eucharist without being ordained by an Anglican bishop? I attend an evangelical Anglican church which hires largely from the evangelical world, but every time the pastor coming in had to give up his previous ordination and be ordained within the Anglican church.”
You raise an excellent and troublesome point. I will try to answer it as honestly as I can. As it stands if someone wished to come and join our leadership team and celebrate at the Eucharist, you are right in saying that they would need to be ordained as an Anglican minister first. However, I will check this out with my ordained friends on our team, because somethiong at the back of my mind is niggling at me and saying that this may not necessarily the case, and that the ordination vows of other denominations may be permissioble in certain circumstances. I shall get back to you on this once I have found out.
As you will no doubt not be surprised to hear, if this is the case, which in general it may well be, hence it saddens me considerably. I would have no problem being ministered to by a celebrant whose vows render their succession as being considered “unapostolic” by my denomination.
However, I do have a question of my own to ask you.
” I attend an evangelical Anglican church which hires largely from the evangelical world, but every time the pastor coming in had to give up his previous ordination and be ordained within the Anglican church.”
I am guessing that you may be an evangelical Episcopalian in the US, because I cannot envisage a situation here in the UK where an evangelical Anglican church would need to go outside of the evangelcial Anglican fold to appoint a minister. It may be necessary/advisiable to “spread the net” abit more widely in the case of certain leadership roles ie Youth Pastor/Leader or Pastoral Assitant, where celebrating the Eucharist is not required.
I can only guess that things are a touch grim in evangelical Anglican circles in your part of the world if you often go “outside the fold” . Although the way Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schorri is going, there won’t be many evangelical Anglicans left in the Episcopalian church following her almost Stalin-like purge of teh evangelical fold of late.
I have said it before and I will say it again, I am an advocate of women’s ordiantion including to the role of Bishopric, but I think that Bishop Jefferts Schorri has done immense damage to the cause considerably with her actions of late. As with all appointments to the Bishopric, whether male of females, it must be the right person who is both anointed and appointed, and I fear this may not be the case with Bishop Schorri.
Like or Dislike:
0
Peter and Michael,
Very good! Here is were the default enters. What is canon(ical)? Or better said: Who is Canon? God.
If the scriptures are “God breathed” then any and all other individuals are subject to the same canon – whether counsels, fathers, priests, parishoners, you or I.
Valdimir
Like or Dislike:
0
TUaD,
Thanks for the kind words.
CMP,
I think that the other commenters have seen this as well. You’re being a bit arbitrary in what counts as “Tradition”. Every modern heresy has its historical roots in the early church at some point in time. On an epistemic level, just because something may have had a minority following doesn’t mean that it was false. [I mean, aren't you a Calvinist?] That’s an argumentum ad populum.
Heck, even when Arianism died out in the Roman Empire, it still had a substantial following when an entire Germanic nation converted to it (i.e. the Visigoths).
I don’t see that “tradition” is of any use whatsoever.
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil,
“I can only guess that things are a touch grim in evangelical Anglican circles in your part of the world if you often go “outside the fold” . Although the way Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schorri is going, there won’t be many evangelical Anglicans left in the Episcopalian church following her almost Stalin-like purge of teh evangelical fold of late.
I have said it before and I will say it again, I am an advocate of women’s ordiantion including to the role of Bishopric, but I think that Bishop Jefferts Schorri has done immense damage to the cause considerably with her actions of late. As with all appointments to the Bishopric, whether male of females, it must be the right person who is both anointed and appointed, and I fear this may not be the case with Bishop Schorri.”
Why advocate women’s ordination and based on what?
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, I do realize that this post does not cover that, but cut me some slack! I can cover everything in such a post
When I talk about tradition here, I am assuming that it is true tradition that forumates orthodoxy. I have written quite a bit on what is orthodoxy and how to determine it here on the blog. In fact, there is a category for such.
I know that is weak, but the concepts are long and in need of precise coverage.
Like or Dislike:
0
Sam,
This was a good post. There is even recent discussion that Arius himself may have been misunderstood based on the fine and overlapping nuances of these languages – esp. Greek.
ROCOR and MP view the miaphytes as Orthodox and if I am not mistaken are in canonical communion with them by virtue of the fact they are Orthodox. But the MP and ROCOR are also engaged in dialogue with the World Council of Churches!
(Thank God not a Church)
Vladimir
“The Oriental Churches hold to Miaphysitism, and it is pretty much a situation of cross language confusion, nature v. person, which is essentially not a problem in regards to Chalcedon. The Orthodox and Roman churches have both declared that it shouldn’t be an divisive issue.
Much has been said about the difficulties in understanding the Greek technical terms used in these controversies. The main words are ousia (οὐσία, ’substance’), physis (φύσις, ‘nature’), hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) and prosopon (πρόσωπον, ‘person’). Even in Greek, their meanings can overlap somewhat. These difficulties became even more exaggerated when these technical terms were translated into other languages. In Syriac, physis was translated as kyānâ (ܟܝܢܐ) and hypostasis was qnômâ (ܩܢܘܡܐ). However, in the Persian Church, or the East Syriac tradition, qnoma was taken to mean nature, thereby confounding the issue furthermore. The shades of meaning are even more blurred between these words, and they could not be used in such a philosophical way as their Greek counterparts. Hence, some have suggested that miaphysitism came about due to a grounding of language in the fact that someone’s person and nature are a verisimilitude.
However, the Oriental Orthodox do hold to the Nicene creed.”
Like or Dislike:
0
BRITPHIL
there is no “official” position or teaching in the Anglican Churches. Each one can be as heretical as it wants to be. Cheers.
CMP
-I believe this is an avocation of apostolic succession in its truest form. It recognizes a succession of teaching, not simply a succession of person and creates an accountability structure that cannot be ignored.-
What you might be overlooking here is the ‘people’ teach ‘the true teaching’. There were no books to pickup and read. People teach. that was not the intent of Ap.Succ
Like or Dislike:
0
oops.
‘people’ teaching WAS the intent of Ap.Succ
Like or Dislike:
0
“Peter, it has to do with how you are deriving your understanding of “orthodox.” You are, at least in your argument, taking a maximalist approach to orthodoxy. This is causing confusion. I would simply have to defer to the articles I referenced rather than writing out their arguments.”
I’ve read these articles before and interacted before, but remain confused, so I’m still asking questions.
Now how come the boundaries of maximalist/minimalist Christianity are not themselves something you defer to tradition about? Because tradition has a ton to say about that.
If you don’t defer to it, why isn’t Arius and Marcion church fathers? Sure they were wrong, but so what, why get all maximalist?
See, here’s the confusing thing. When I ask why you exclude heretics from the great tradition, you say because they are wrong. When I ask why you accept the other fathers despite you having major disagreements with their great tradition, you decry maximalism. I remain confused.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think that you are looking toward one particular time or entity for your definition of Tradition, while I look toward all of history and look for a centralist approach. Obviously, this is where Protestants and Orthodox have always parted.
We condem the heretics because they did not have apostolic succession and their use of the Bible was off. This is the judgement of all of Christian history and I find myself within this circle.
Like or Dislike:
0
Chris, I was wondering when you were going to chime in.
Chris, you know as well as I that it is the teaching that is foundational, not the people. Yes, people are necessary, but they don’t form the principles upon which the content of Apostolic Succession rests. We need them, but we can’t emphasize their lineage to the neglect of their message. You also know as well as I that succession in person does not have a perfect track record.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP
go to bed!
we must see the events within their context. foundational teaching does not come to you nor I unless a person delivers it. Think of Martial Arts. Where did you earn your black-belt? If you cannot answer the question then you are not a legit black-belt. You must have a master. you cannot pick up the skill by yourself by kicking bamboo all day. It will not gnostically come to you. More likely you will become a maverick and expert bamboo toppler. Bamboo no kick back, say mr. miagi. The technique of the art is wrapped so tightly around the end product that a master can tell when you don’t do the skill properly. You must submit to him until he is happy with you.
The heretics have been reading all about baby-Jesus too, but they lack the credentials that Christ gave to Peter. A catholic has a much easier time with the patristic era because they are simply describing what actually happened. Protestants grab at straws due to the latent assumption that things like Ap.Succ are ‘in the way’ of Christ’s teaching. Prots wondering how the faith ‘sunk’ into the mono-episcopate is an example of this. Them biships should’a read the bible where it’s clearly teaching plurality of elders. the tacit dig at the ‘imperfect track record’ is simply an admission that the Church has always had people in it.
Prots don’t need a master, we just need the bible-right? Without Ap.Succ you would not “know” “which” foundational teachings were, well, from the fountain–Christ.
I like your thinking here. I really do. It’s a good exercise.
It’s just that the Vincetian Canon includes ecclesiology. It’s just too hard to get anywhere within a fantasy-body of Christ. We must work within the Visible Body of Christ. Prots don’t uphold a Visible but an invisible phantasm body. Catholics believe in a real Visible Body with people comprising it. Good with the bad. Don’t trample the good to uproot the bad. let the harvesters do their job.
laters
Like or Dislike:
0
You know…
As a Mormon who debates with Evangelicals on a somewhat regular basis, I really don’t mind the lack of organization or accountability for Evangelical teachings and doctrine. Evangelicals have chosen a free form structure based on an analogy to the diverse “body of Christ.” And that’s cool and all…
But what I do wish is that they would quit attacking religions like the LDS or Catholics who actually attempt to take centralized responsibility for the doctrine.
It seems that repeatedly, I get Evangelicals trying to nail me to the wall for LDS leadership’s past statements about… say… the Mark of Cain as a justification for discriminating against black people (or whatever other doctrinal missteps may be in our past). But whenever I try to point out that Mormons actually borrowed such doctrinal innovations from PROTESTANT ministers who were justifying slavery, suddenly there’s a rush of protests.
“Oh no! That’s not me! That was those other guys! It’s just me, my Jesus, and my Bible. And since I shopped around for a pastor I like, I’m in the clear! No skeletons in my closet!”
Seriously, I’m really OK with this idea of diversity in the body of Christ. I obviously don’t agree with the Evangelical lack of centralized authority and accountability. But I will at least admit that it makes sense and has some credible Biblical support. I will consequently usually try to refrain from criticizing you guys over it.
But I do think it’s pretty tacky when Evangelicals try to take advantage of this lack of accountability to kick Mormons, or Catholics, or Orthodox, without fear of retaliation.
That’s just gutless. If you want to be decentralized, fine. But if you want to criticize the goofs of centralized faith traditions, it’s only fair that you be required to own the goofs of your own traditions. No hiding behind your own personalized interpretation of the Bible allowed.
Like or Dislike:
0
That doesn’t make any sense to me. You and the Catholics claim to have an infallible teacher/prophetic ministry; we claim to have a fallible one. If you point out errors in our ministry, we’ll nod and agree that those are errors. If we point out errors in yours, you’ve got a lot of explaining to do — you are the one claiming perfection.
Like or Dislike:
0
Not true; the Catholic is (as much as the protestant) looking back through the lens of modern doctrine. There’s very little “describing what actually happened”, and to the extent there is, it’s done by both sides equally well (that is, fallibly but with all human skill).
False. Protestants recognize the need for an authoritative teacher. What we don’t do is demand that our teacher be infallible. We also recognize that because our teachers aren’t infallible, they can err. Even when learning from an apostle, one should compare his teaching with Scripture to validate it against the past teaching of God.
This doesn’t have to mean that an apostle can err (although, as Peter was fond of demonstrating, they CAN); but it does mean that we cannot tell infallibly who is an apostle and who is not.
(And, of course, as Peter said of Paul, sometimes an apostle can teach truly and be misunderstood.)
I think the “scare quotes” are meant to imply that “know” refers to “knowledge with infallible certainty”, right?
But with the infallible teachers you claim to have I still don’t know — because you Catholics aren’t the only one making these claims. The Orthodox church is making the same claims with the same backing, and teaching different doctrines as infallibly true. I could fallibly PICK one, but then my choice would be ultimately fallible.
It makes much more sense to admit that I, as a human, can know things without having to “know” them infallibly. I can learn from a master who’s learned from a master (and so on), and then I can learn from someone else that some of my masters were wrong, and therefore learn from another master. How can I know that my own teacher is wrong? By trying him against a higher authority. Paul called for this when he praised the Bereans, and again when he commanded that if anyone (he or an angel from heaven) were to teach a different Gospel, “let him be accursed”.
Like or Dislike:
0
Tank,
no scare tactics intended. you picked up on something not intended by my post. gnosis is not where I was heading, but the other direction.
Answer this, how did Irenaeus receive, know, acquire, learn [all same] then pass on Apostolic Preaching/doctrine/truth?
…not to us all these centuries later, but to his progeny in the Faith? To what did they turn as their highest authority?
CMP is asking us to reconsider Ap.Succ. That means to dig and understand before we pass judgment.
Like or Dislike:
0
Actually, Mormonism has no doctrine of prophetic infallibility. We hold our leaders capable of making mistakes – even doctrinal ones on occasion. Any prophet in Mormonism must be judged against a variety of complex factors – first and foremost being accepted scriptural canon.
Of course, many lay Mormons do not draw the distinction so fine. There’s an old joke:
“Catholic doctrine says the Pope is infallible – but nobody really believes that. While Mormon doctrine says the Prophet is not infallible – but nobody really believes that.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Actually Catholics would say that the infallibility of the Pope is heavily qualified. He is not really infallible. It is just when he teaches in a canonized form (i.e. extrodinary means—ex cathedra) that he is infallible. On any other day of the week, he is fallible.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mormons would say something similar about their own prophet.
For instance, Joseph Smith would not be considered by most Mormons to have been speaking infallibly in a reported conversation where he speculated that the moon was inhabited by people.
Neither would many Mormons consider a televised interview with a reporter to be an instance of the Prophet speaking infallibly. So perhaps we are similar in that sense.
Like or Dislike:
0
“The heretics have been reading all about baby-Jesus too, but they lack the credentials that Christ gave to Peter.”
CM Woodall
Your careless bandying about of the term “heretic” does you no favours whatsoever You haven’t got a stake you are gleefully setting light to at the moment have you? It is bad enough trying to educate evangelicals to use the term far more sparingly, without seeing it being sloppily meted out on the Catholic side of the fence. Can’t say that I find your use of the term “Prot” too appetising either. I was hoping we may have moved beyond such terms but sadly it looks like I am wrong.
..
I would not at all be described to discover that God Himself may not adhere so strongly to the concept of the Visible Church as you do yourself…and if he does, I am sure on occasions that he wishes he doesn’t have to given the abysmal track record of both the Visible and Invisible church.
If, as it would appear, you convinced that, you are bound for eternity and the rest of us heretics have no hope, what a boring place such a heaven would be like. Imagine myself getting there only to find yourdself surrounded by those as confirmed in their prejudices as I am…an horrendous prospect There won’t be much scope for dicussion. Just how are you going to while the eternal time away??..unless of course you decide to turn on some of those pesky Catholic liberation theologians who may have snuck in to heaven by the back door somehow on the basis of their baptism into the one true church.
“BRITPHIL
“there is no “official” position or teaching in the Anglican Churches. Each one can be as heretical as it wants to be. Cheers.”
Just in case you think I am overreacting slightly, one accusation of heresy is annoying, to have two thrown at you in one day just has to be countered.
Just in case you are wondering, I happen to hail from the evangelical wing of the Anglican church, but I am one who is grateful to , has learnt from and is is willing to go on learning from and receiving the best of the strands that the Catholic wing of my denomination brings to the table. What I am so grateful for however, is that I belong to a denomination , which does not compel me to to unquestioning and uncritically accept everything (some may even call them heresies” that a centralised organisation throws at me and tells me I must believe. I also refuse to intellectually give assent or credence to a concept which states that a man cna be a fallible child, adult, preist, bishop and Cardinal for the majority of his days, yet somehow his pronnouncements become infallible and beyond question the moment he is installed as supreme leader of his branch of the church.
Like or Dislike:
0
Philaret of Moscow has some rather interesting things to say about the relation of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.
If one were to understand Holy Tradition as Church understanding or Interpretation this might be helpful.
His remarks on Holy Scripture, although lengthy, are worth a look.
On Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture.
16. How is divine revelation spread among men and preserved in the true Church?
By two channels—holy tradition and holy Scripture.
17. What is meant by the name holy tradition?
By the name holy tradition is meant the doctrine of the faith, the law of God, the sacraments, and the ritual as handed down by the true believers and worshipers of God by word and example from one to another, and from generation to generation.
18. Is there any sure repository of holy tradition?
All true believers united by the holy tradition of the faith, collectively and successively, by the will of God, compose the Church; and she is the sure repository of holy tradition, or, as St. Paul expresses it, The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Tim. iii. 15.
St. Irenæus writes thus: We ought not to seek among others the truth, which we may have for asking from the Church; for in her, as in a 449rich treasure-house, the Apostles have laid up in its fullness all that pertains to the truth, so that whosoever seeketh may receive from her the food of life. She is the door of life. (Adv. Hæres. lib. iii. c. 4.)
19. What is that which you call holy Scripture?
Certain books written by the Spirit of God through men sanctified by God, called Prophets and Apostles. These books are commonly termed the Bible.
20. What does the word Bible mean?
It is Greek, and means the books. The name signifies that the sacred books deserve attention before all others.
21. Which is the more ancient, holy tradition or holy Scripture?
The most ancient and original instrument for spreading divine revelation is holy tradition. From Adam to Moses there were no sacred books. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself delivered his divine doctrine and ordinances to his Disciples by word and example, but not by writing. The same method was followed by the Apostles also at first, when they spread abroad the faith and established the Church of Christ. The necessity of tradition is further evident from this, that books can be available only to a small part of mankind, but tradition to all.
22. Why, then, was holy Scripture given?
To this end, that divine revelation might be preserved more exactly and unchangeably. In holy Scripture we read the words of the Prophets and Apostles precisely as if we were living with them and listening to them, although the latest of the sacred books were written a thousand and some hundred years before our time.
23. Must we follow holy tradition, even when we possess holy Scripture?
We must follow that tradition which agrees with the divine revelation and with holy Scripture, as is taught us by holy Scripture itself. The Apostle Paul writes: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle. 2 Thess. ii. 15.
24. Why is tradition necessary even now?
As a guide to the right understanding of holy Scripture, for the right ministration of the sacraments, and the preservation of sacred rites and ceremonies in the purity of their original institution.
St. Basil the Great says of this as follows: Of the doctrines and injunctions kept by the Church, some we have from written instruction. 450but some we have received from, apostolical tradition, by succession in private. Both the former and the latter have one and the same force for piety, and this will be contradicted by no one who has ever so little knowledge in the ordinances of the Church; for were we to dare to reject unwritten customs, as if they had no great importance, we should insensibly mutilate the Gospel, even in the most essential points, or, rather, for the teaching of the Apostles leave but an empty name. For instance, let us mention before all else the very first and commonest act of Christians, that they who trust in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ should sign themselves with the sign of the cross—who hath taught this by writing? To turn to the east in prayer—what Scripture have we for this? The words of invocation in the change of the Eucharistic bread and of the Cup of blessing—by which of the Saints have they been left us in writing? for we are not content with those words which the Apostle or the Gospel records, but both before them and after them, we pronounce others also, which we hold to be of great force for the sacrament, though we have received them from unwritten teaching. By what Scripture is it, in like manner, that we bless the water of baptism, the oil of unction, and the person himself who is baptized? Is it not by a silent and secret tradition? What more? The very practice itself of anointing with oil—what written word have we for it? Whence is the rule of trine immersion? and the rest of the ceremonies at baptism, the renunciation of Satan and his angels?—from what Scripture are they taken? Are they not all from this unpublished and private teaching, which our Fathers kept under a reserve inaccessible to curiosity and profane disquisition, having been taught as a first principle to guard by silence the sanctity of the mysteries? for how were it fit to publish in writing the doctrine of those things, on which the unbaptized may not so much as look? (Can. xcvii. De Spir. Sanct. c. xxvii.)
On Holy Scripture in Particular.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.vi.iii.i.html
Valdimir
Like or Dislike:
0
I don’t know what he meant by that, but please consider that he may have simply meant it literally — that heretics studied baby Jesus. When James said that demons believe that God is One, he wasn’t insulting you personally — he actually was talking about demons.
I do admit that britphil makes a strong claim about the sloppiness of Anglican doctrine, but you fully support it in your response — according to you, the central organization indeed does nothing to stop open heresy from being taught in the Church, and thereby violates Biblical teaching on the task and role of the Church leadership. I didn’t know it was that bad.
You don’t have to be infallible to prosecute error. It’s fine to allow Church members to have erroneous views; it’s entirely different to tolerate open heresy being taught from the pulpit.
-Wm
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks for that, Vladimir.
I was going to respond to BritPhil, but your post did it better than I could. I seem to be misunderstood here.
Thanks, WmTank. You are correct as described by Vladimir’s post.0 We are not calling each other heretics but trying to understand what was going on in the early Church.
BritPhil, we are not communicating here. Sorry. Heretic has a meaning and I don’t bandy it lightly…I just wasn’t calling out people on here. What I was trying to do was point out the original context of Ap.Succ [a context in which heretics existed]. I felt that fulfilled the spirit of the title, Reconsider Apostolic Succession.
Sorry if I stepped on your toes…that is not the location I was aiming for.
More Comments:
1 2 Next »