Talk:Apostolic succession/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Apostolic Founders

Hi! does anyone want to help to expand this section as it's own page? with histories, traditions (verifiable), each Papal, Patriarch, Catholicus degree, concerning each other. there are more churches, like i think? Antioch, with two Catholic Churches and one Orthodox claiming the Throne. does the Greek Orthodox Church have Saint Paul's Throne? What Happened to the other Apostles Churches not listed? How about listing the current Churches of The twelve Apostles, then past Churches, then the same for the Seventy-Two Disciples. peace Dava4444 —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

LDS (Mormons) understanding (#1)

Article says:

They believe Christ returned to the earth in the early 19th century

Mormons believe Christ returned to earth in 19th century? I thought it was just the angel Moroni... -- SJK

No, supposedly Christ himself returned as well. God the Father, too. --Dmerrill

---

I'll wait for a moment for an explanation, but the deleted sentence contrasting the LDS and Catholic view is crucial, it seems to me. Is there some reason that the LDS and Catholic principles should not be directly contrasted? The LDS has made claims against the Catholic principle: didn't the deleted sentence clarify what the Catholic principle is, without being redundant? I request that the person who deleted it, would put it back - or I will, if there is no reasoned objection. — Mkmcconn

A fuller contrast probably would be useful in a separate paragraph. The primary problem with the deleted sentence (which modified the original) was that it "put words in the mouth" of the LDS view: an LDS claim in catholic-like language. So, why merely delete it? Short explanation: I didn't have time to modify and expand upon it and it wasn't particularly crucial to have it in their NOW the way it was. Longer explanation: I think the objective of wikipedia is magnificent which is why I'm participating. However, one problem I have with the process is that wikipedia articles are getting more and more exposure while the info it presents is not necessarily reliable. If there were some sort of disclaimer on articles for the casual observer that the articles were in progress and not necessarily accurate, I could probably care less....BUT I don't want casual observers going away with the wrong idea. IMO, deletion with merely some notice is appropriate so long as the history of the deleted material continues to be available. On another matter....watch out for anti-mormon material...it tends to take it upon itself to interpret LDS doctrine and impose quotes of church leaders as authoritive or put their words in a false light. -Randy 11/23/02

That's understandable reason for deleting something. However, it would be helpful if the deleted content were pasted into the Talk page (here) along with a brief description of why it was deleted. That way it will be easier for others to find the change without hunting through the history, and if the reason is given, someone else might find a way to better express or balance the information in a more neutral or accurate fashion. This seems to be the general convention in Wikipedia that has worked fairly well in lots of controversial articles. Wesley

An explanatory note in the edit summary is also nice, and almost always sufficient. Something like "LDS believe Jesus is the (OT) God of Israel" would be helpful. Mkmcconn

I went back in and moved the paragraph emphasizing the unbrokeness of the apostolic succession to the end of the article. I think the previous paragraph with the LDS view is a good lead into it. When I get a chance I'll go back and add some LDS view as to the meaning of "the gates of hell shall not prevail", Christ's promise of being with apostles to the end, and "upon this rock" I will build my church. -Randy 11/23/02

I'm sure you (is it Randy?) don't mean that the paragraph about the LDS is supposed to be out of the LDS mouth. You have a right to expect a fair description of the LDS, though - an accurate description. If a description, then the contrast to catholicism was useful - and that contrast is, that there is a single historical apostolic foundation for the entire Church according to Catholics, compared to multiple historical foundations according to the Mormons. This description was intended merely to be a summation of what you and other Mormon contributors have been adding to Wikipedia concerning how authority was restored to Joseph Smith, as well as what has been written about the visit of Jesus to America. I didn't consult "anti-mormon" material, and it wasn't intended to be an attack on Mormonism. Anyway, I think that Wesley's added sentence removes the need for replacing the deletion. — Mkmcconn

I think that the whole two paragraphs on the LDS/Mormon view of apostolic succession is irrelevent, is an idiosyncratic extension of the concept of apostolic succession, and is best placed as a reference, with an article on the subject at a link. Even logically, speaking of "renewing" apostolic succession, after a 'break' is on pretty thin ground. Can we keep the article a little relevent at least. The LDS spiel looks very like a bit of religious propaganda to me. Meabhar 22:46, 16 August 2004 (UTC)

Roman Catholic understanding

This article should contain a thorough delineation of the apostolic succession for the various religious groups which emphasize succession in terms of lines of authority. I was curious as to why in the Christianity article Mkmccon deleted as "historically inaccurate" a reference that Catholics can trace their authority to a bishop in ancient rome who was apparently ordained by the apostles (either Peter or Paul)...yet emphasized the point that the pope can trace that line to the apostles. Lets see the details please. Do Catholics not trace their authority back to Clement, Anacletus and Linus, the early bishops of Rome? Do Catholics not view Clement as the successor of apostolic perogatives or privileges? If not, then who are the early intermediary successors of the apostles in the Catholic tradition? If so, why delete it? How is it "historically inaccurate"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.245.252.30 (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2002 (UTC)

Well, without going through the old page versions, it's hard to know or remember exactly what text you're referring to. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make either. List of Bishops has links to lists of bishops in Rome, Constantinople, and elsewhere. No need to duplicate those lists here, but I'll add a link to that list. Wesley

It's not historically accurate to contrast Mormonism to Catholicism by saying that the entire hierarchy of the church is traceable to a single bishop of Rome - that's not what they say. The "Apostolic See" is succession from the apostles (plural). The uniqueness of Rome is that it is an uninterrupted succession of known names, carefully maintained, all the way back to Peter (who even he was not a pope himself, supposedly ordained the first bishop of Rome perhaps together with Paul). But Rome was not the only "apostolic see", and it was not the only line of succession. The Pope did not ordain all bishops; only those who were under his territorial jurisdiction. Alexandrian bishops did not go to Antioch to be ordained. Alexandria was "autocephalous". It had its own "pope" (and still does). It is true that the popes are traceable in a direct line. Apostolic succession does not have to do only with popes. See Episcopalian — Mkmcconn

Thanks for explanations, clarifications and links.

You are most sincerely welcome. Randy, why don't you get yourself a user name? I think that your contributions have been good, and you along with Quintessent and only a handful of others certainly know more about the LDS. It would be helpful for setting up your talk page, so that questions can be asked about issues that you are interested in, as well as to work through disagreements so that the entry/Talk pages can be even more topic-oriented. — Mkmcconn

Done. Randy is now BoNoMoJo 02:38, 29 November 2002 (UTC)

Pontifex Maximus et al

The article is badly flawed in leaving out many things including these 4 major ommisions:

1) The line of High Priests of Rome called the Pontifex Maximus which come down to today's Popes. It would be argued that this has/had nothing to do with today's church grounded upon Christ but it surely does, as the historians and all do not understand the old panoply of gods as being in reality a worship, same as today, of one God, using the differing aspects of the one God, via different names (same as Muslims have 99 names for the one Allah/ God/ Hindu's the same, etc etc).

2) And also leaving out the blessing via the Gift of Constantine or what many called the trick of Constantine that is a trick by Catholic Church in taking, without discussion and so defrauding / stealing, the special blessing of Heaven upon Constantine, trick by the bishops of Rome to be a part of the Pope's overall blessings beyond Peter's blessing - which would purport to expand the Pope/ Catholic Church authority beyond religion to include global rule (that was what was given Constantine and earlier - see Bible - to Cyrus the Great; see Isaiah 44,45 and 2nd Deuteronomy 36 , Ezra 1).

3) And surely of the very same highest importance, is the gift upon the descendants of Benjamin in blessing bestoed upon the tribe of Benjamin that God would be always between their shoulders or with them always - making any pope from a Benjamin line of immensely higher status than other pope See Deuterronomy 33 - blessings of 12 tribes by Moses : upon Benjamin - The beloved of the Lord. Of Benjamin he said: “The beloved of the Lord shall dwell in safety by Him, Who shelters him all the day long; And he shall dwell between His shoulders.”

4) And too, the Priory of Sion, being ranked above all Catholicism in its being a global religion of the order of Melcheziak / or same order as Christ and so its GM or grand master being clealry above any pope.

So these 4 equally important sucessions , easilyh seen equal in importance to the apostolic succession of Christ to Peter to today's pope's , are left out of the article...

Fotenote- And it is esp bizarre and esp of a certain, not only bizarre but entirely in error, to allow such holy aritcles to be dom/ed over and written by agnostics , esp Satan worshipers who endlessly disrupt and rule wikipedia; seeming straight from Hell / Satan himself - with zero stopping by the supposed adminstrators of wikipedia who are among such archons, demons including the old master himself james / jimmy wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.65.131 (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Edward IV?

I didn't think Anglicanism was around in the time of Edward IV. Do you mean Edward VI (Henry VIII's son)?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.45.197.21 (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2003 (UTC)

JW's understanding

I added better information about Jw's. george 03:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Acts 12:2 passage re: James the Just is an argument from silence, rather than positive evidence that there was no successor. I adjusted the text so as not to overstate the facts. See also Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. Wesley 04:39, 14 February 2005 (UTC)

Point of View, Factuality

Essentially a revert: removed two initial, newly-added paragraphs which seemed to have something to do with Orthodox theology, but not exactly (or maybe sedevancantist RC, but again, not exactly), and which were written in fairly strong POV terms. Don'tcha just love how these hot-button edits are so often done anonymously?--Midnite Critic 18:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

For your reading pleasure, here they are:

"The Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ defines that Apostolicity means that the Apostles have successors to their doctrine, authority and Orders. As such, those who do not profess the Catholic doctrine whole and entire and without any question, despite havin been consecrated bishop are not successors of the Apostles, while those that have been lawfully appointed by the Pope as bishops are successors of the Apostles, even prior to their consecration as bishop.

"The Vatican II Church, which claims the name of Catholic holds that men must be appointed bishop by the Pope and consecrated to be a successor of the Apostles. In fact, a man does not become Pope until he has been consecrated bishop, which is a departure from Catholic tradition which holds that a man becomes Pope the moment he accepts election, even before his consecration as bishop (if he has not been consecrated bishop.)"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnite Critic (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Absence of references

e.g. for Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. – surely an oversight that the original contributor is going to remedy shortly? 21:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Primacy claims

I read on my Talk page "Please discuss any major changes/additions on the talk page of the article, as there seems to be some debate regarding your recent edits. Thanks...and merry Christmas. KHM03 13:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)". My thanks to KHMO3, with seasonal wishes, for being the only one not to think I'll magically disappear if reverted often enough.

So first let me point out that I changed nothing, not even very minor (except sections marked with a technically illegal number of = signs, the order should ==, === etc., never a single; even that is blindly reverted, but I suppose that is accidental).

Secondly I see no "debate" about the addition that I do make, and that is the problem: people shout "POV" at me without a shred of argumentation; I might learn something or even a lot if there were a debate, so I'm interested to see if this starts one. If anyone thinks the Catholic Encyclopaedia (one of the rare source that actually have a template for the frequent copyright-free use of its vast and well-reputed content, except on things outdated since the early 20th century) is wrong at some precise point(s), it's up to him to point out where, preferably with source(s), and possibly amend that part or counter it. Just ignoring the major use of the term in the largest religious organisation in wold history is to absurd for words, so even if someone thinks he can refute every single paragraph, shoving everything under the carpet is denying the sun: I clearly mark the section CLAIM, and the existence of a view relevant for a billion catholics is worth mentioning (no less then the existence of say superstition or long scientificaly refuted errors such as 'the earth is flat'), as long as it is not presented as fact- if you can think of rewording and addition to take out a fuse in that respect, pleaso do, but simply deleting the whole section is an inacceptable censorship of facts: religion IS belief, not only material truth. If someone were, for instance, to add a section on say protestant objections to the Catholic claims, that would be positive. So I keep restoring what is not even seriously challenged, but hope to learn what can be improved, and if that is the bulk of Catholic Encyclopaedia's text but for good reasons, fine, but I will not stand for what looks -for lack of any explanation at this point; I can only hope it is something more constructive- like a Catholicism-phobia, but please prove that impression entirely wrong! Fastifex 18:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection with adding a section regarding the RC view of apostolic succession. But what was added is massive compared to the rest of the article, which is disproportionate, ISTM. In any event, the onus of "proof," so to speak, is on those who want to drastically alter the article as it now stands. So making any substantial addition or subtraction should be proposed with explanation and justification so that there can be a consensus formed. As of this writing, at least, that hasn't happened. Rather, a gigantic chunk was added and then a complaint made when that chunk got reverted to the article's previous state. The term restoration has been used for that addition, but it's not a restoration if it's an addition to the article. Re-adding it after reversion doesn't count.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a good source, to be sure, but it is decidedly not representative of a NPOV. —Preost ^talk contribs 20:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There still is not a single element of argumentation against any part of Fastifex' contribution, so I will revert to his version (whether it is techically a restoration or revert is of no interest) what is not refuted- at this point, all. The 'previous state' of an article is NEVER relevant, nor the 'disproportionate' lenght of sections as such; if it were, it would be only normal that Catholicism, the world's largest religion ever, got a larger section, but feel free to add even more on protestant (or other) views if you feel (wrongly, but no bother) 'better' representation is achieved by quantity. The onus probandi is always on the side which challenges, and since Fastifex left every existing sentence in he didn't, so the burden of proof is entirely on the other side, which is utterly silent in every respect to the content, while admitting Catholic Encyclopaedia is a 'good source', so again it should should specify which of its elements are not NPOV but can be refuted or how they are best balanced by other facts. Arcarius 01:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

So you're telling me that anyone can add anything they like to any article, and the responsibility to prove that it shouldn't be there is on everyone else? Please reassure me that you aren't kidding. The reality is that there is a proposed addition to the article (which didn't get proposed, really, but just added) which radically changes the general shape it's had for well over a year. If only for the sake of politeness, such additions should be proposed and discussed on the talk page before they are added, not as posturing fait accompli challenges to objectors afterward.

The fact that the RCC is the world's largest religion is not really relevant in terms of determining what its amount of representation in an article is. Should there be an Islamic section of nearly equal size as a result? Surely Muslims might have an opinion on it.

The problem with this gigantic addition is mainly its size. It needs to be summarized. If there is a genuine feeling that there needs to be an article on Wikipedia which represents the RCC's view more thoroughly, then a separate article dedicated to that view can be created. On an article about apostolic succession in general, no one group should have a dominant representation. You may not know this, since your account has been editing on Wikipedia for only about a month (including only two Talk pages including this one), but disproportionate representation is frequently cited as a reason to trim certain sections of an article.

If engaging in what is normal for Wikipedia—proposing major additions (especially controversial ones) before making them—cannot be done regarding this article, ISTM that an administrator should be called in for arbitration. —Preost ^talk contribs 03:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

At a glance, I see two major problems with the added text itself, in addition to the procedural objections that ASDamick raised. First, it duplicates much of what was already said earlier in the article. Secondly, despite the intro to the section the text itself is plainly argumentative in tone, advocating its POV. It needs to be trimmed down and edited to integrate it with the rest of the article. I don't have time to undertake that task at the moment, so I'm going to remove the section as it is. However, I invite Fastifex or anyone else to re-add it in shortened form, adjusting both the content and style to better fit with the rest of the article. I'll leave the NPOV notice in place for now until it appears that we've reached some consensus on whether to include this section and if so, in what form. Wesley 05:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wesley sounds like he has finally got the idea: restyling and shortening may be in orther, and the same goes for the tone; so the NPOV notice now at least has an intentional basis. Until anyone follows up on his good intentions, I put the Primacy tetx back: the major use in Catholicism must a least be visible to anyone ready to work on reworking it. 10:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, respect the standard procedure, which is not to place disputed material in an article in hopes that it will be fixed. I've moved it here to the Talk page so that it can be worked on before it gets placed in the article. Why is this important? Remember that many people are reading Wikipedia who are not editors, so putting the text into the article as it stands gives the impression that it's the approved form of the article. —Preost ^talk contribs 13:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't much of the info already covered more succintly in the section entitled "Apostolicity as episcopal continuity"? Merry Christmas...KHM03 13:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

ASDamick is right to propose working on the text here (or some other out-of-the-way subpage) rather than in the article proper; it really isn't acceptable at all in the form it was first inserted. Secondly, I hope that whoever is trying to insert it will register and use a username. It isn't technically required, yet, although it may be soon if anonymous edits continue to be abused. For significant contributions like this, registering a username is at the very least good etiquette. Just as you mentioned me by my chosen username, it would be both convenient and polite if I could refer to you (singular or plural) by a name(s) of your choosing. Wesley 04:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed new section

I'm moving this section to the Talk so that it can be fixed before it's put into the article. —Preost ^talk contribs 13:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried my hand at summarizing the first section, "Roman claim of Primacy." I don't even know where to begin with the second section; it's a very different version of the church history of Britain than what I've heard or read. For me, that alone is enough to make me inclined to scrap the whole section or 95% of it, since the source of this history is probably as biased and involved as the histories I've read of it. For instance, I had thought that all the "Orthodox" monasteries were shut down and the rule of Rome imposed by force there sometime in the 11th and 12th centuries. Wesley 04:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...the Anglican section doesn't seem NPOV or entirely accurate. And it's way too long. The Anglican view can really be summed up in a paragraph or two. Maybe three. KHM03 12:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The Anglican section is plain wrong when it states that the 39 articles were a protestant Act. They were actually a compromise position between Protestants and Catholics, which is why many Anglo-Catholics today can claim to follow the 39 Articles completey. It is definitely not NPOV.--Hahaandy1 23:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone still think the proposed new section should go into the article, either as they are now or after additional edits? I think the 'Roman claim' might be ok, though I haven't checked to see how much it still duplicates other parts of the article. I don't think the Anglican section is ready at all and I'm not sure how to fix it; maybe someone else wants to tackle it? It's also ok with me if none of this gets added. Wesley 17:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, isn't it already pretty much covered elsewhere in the article? A twaek here or there might be better than a massive addition. KHM03 18:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Papacy's and Anglican primacy claims as St.Peter's Apostolic successor

Roman claim of Primacy

The principle underlying the Roman Catholic claim is contained in the idea of succession. "To succeed" is to be the successor of, especially to be the heir of, or to occupy an official position just after, as Victoria succeeded William IV. Now the Roman Pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position, and perform the functions of St. Peter; they are, therefore, his successors. St. Peter came to Rome, and ended there his pontificate; the Bishops of Rome who came after him held his official position in the Church. Beginning with the middle of the second century, there exists a consensus among the Church Fathers as to Peter's martyrdom in Rome. In the third century the popes claim authority from the fact that they are St. Peter's successors, and no one objects to this claim. The Antiochian Orthodox Church also claims this honor, as Peter was also bishop there before he was bishop in Rome, as Rome herself acknowledges. No city boasts the tomb of the Apostle but Rome, where he died.

This chain of documentary evidence, having its first link in Scripture itself, and broken nowhere, puts the sojourn of St. Peter in Rome among the best-ascertained facts in history. It is further strengthened by a similar chain of monumental evidence, which Lanciani, the prince of Roman topographers, sums up as follows: "For the archaeologist the presence and execution of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome are facts established beyond a shadow of doubt, by purely monumental evidence!" (Pagan and Christian Rome, 123).

• St. Peter's successors carried on his office, the importance of which grew with the growth of the Church. In 97 serious dissensions troubled the Church of Corinth. The Roman Bishop, Clement, unbidden, wrote an authoritative letter to restore peace. St. John was still living at Ephesus, yet neither he nor his interfered with Corinth. Before 117 St. Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church as the one which "presides over charity . . . which has never deceived any one, which has taught others." St. Irenaeus (180-200) states the theory and practice of doctrinal unity as follows, using Rome as an example of apostolic succession:

With this Church [of Rome] because of its more powerful principality, every Church must agree, that is the faithful everywhere, in this [i. e. in communion with the Roman Church] the tradition of the Apostles has ever been preserved by those on every side. (Adv. Haereses, III)

During the 464 years between the accession of Constantine (323) and the Seventh General Council (787), the whole or part of the Eastern episcopate lived in schism for approximately two hundred and three years: namely from the Council of Sardica (343) to St. John Chrysostom (389), 55 years; owing to Chrysostom's condemnation (404-415), 11 years; owing to Acadius and the Henoticon edict (484-519), 35 years; total, 203 years (Duchesne). They do, however, claim doctrinal connection with the Apostles, sufficient to their mind to stamp them with the mark of Apostolicity.

The Anglican continuity claim

The Anglican High-Church party asserts its continuity with the pre-Reformation Church in England, and through it with the Catholic Church of Christ. "At the Reformation we but washed our face" is a favourite Anglican saying.

Of all the Churches now separated from Rome, none has a more distinctly Roman origin than the Church of England. It has often been claimed that St. Paul, or some other Apostle, evangelized the Britons. It is certain, however, that whenever Welsh annals mention the introduction of Christianity into the island, invariably they conduct the reader to Rome.

In the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 136) we read that "Pope Eleutherius received a letter from Lucius, King of Britain, that he might be made a Christian by his orders." The incident is told again and again by the Venerable Bede; it is found in the Book of Llandaff, as well as in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; it is accepted by French, Swiss, German chroniclers, together with the home authorities Fabius, Henry of Huntingdon, William of Malmesbury, and Giraldus Cambrensis.

The Saxon invasion swept the British Church out of existence wherever it penetrated, and drove the British Christians to the western borders of the island, or across the sea into Armorica, now French Brittany. No attempt at converting their conquerors was ever made by the conquered. Rome once more stepped in. The missionaries sent by Gregory the Great converted and baptized King Ethelbert of Kent, with thousands of his subjects. In 597 Augustine was made Primate over all England, and his successors, down to the Reformation, have ever received from Rome the pallium, the symbol of super-episcopal authority. The Anglo-Saxon hierarchy was thoroughly Roman in its origin, in its faith and practice, in its obedience and affection; witness every page in Bede's "Ecclesiastical History". A like Roman spirit animated the nation. Among the saints recognized by the Church are twenty-three kings and sixty queens, princes, or princesses of the different Anglo-Saxon dynasties, reckoned from the seventh to the eleventh century. Ten of the Saxon kings made the journey to the tomb of St. Peter, and his successor, in Rome. Anglo-Saxon pilgrims formed quite a colony in proximity to the Vatican, where the local topography (Borgo, Sassia, Vicus Saxonum) still recalls their memory. There was an English school in Rome, founded by King Ine of Wessex and Pope Gregory II (715-731), and supported by the Romescot, or Peter's-pence, paid yearly by every Wessex family. The Romescot was made obligatory by Edward the Confessor, on every monastery and household in possession of land or cattle to the yearly value of thirty pence.

The Norman Conquest (1066) wrought no change in the religion of England. St. Anselm of Canterbury (1093-1109) testified to the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff in his writings (in Matthew 16) and by his acts. When pressed to surrender his right of appeal to Rome, he answered the king in court: You wish me to swear never, on any account, to appeal in England to Blessed Peter or his Vicar; this, I say, ought not to be commanded by you, who are a Christian, for to swear this is to abjure Blessed Peter; he who abjures Blessed Peter undoubtedly abjures Christ, who made him Prince over his Church. St. Thomas Becket shed his blood in defence of the liberties of the Church against the encroachments of the Norman king (1170). Grosseteste, in the thirteenth century, writes more forcibly on the Pope's authority over the whole Church than any other ancient English bishop, although he resisted an ill-advised appointment to a canonry made by the Pope. In the fourteen century Duns Scotus teaches at Oxford "that they are excommunicated as heretics who teach or hold anything different from what the Roman Church holds or teaches." In 1411 the English bishops at the Synod of London condemn Wycliffe's proposition "that it is not of necessity to salvation to hold that the Roman Church is supreme among the Churches." In 1535 Blessed John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, is put to death for upholding against Henry VIII the Pope's supremacy over the English Church. The most striking piece of evidence is the working of the oath taken by archbishops before entering into office: "I, Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury, from this hour forward, will be faithful and obedient to St. Peter, to the Holy Apostolic Roman Church, to my Lord Pope Celestine, and his successors canonically succeeding...I will, saving my order, give aid to defend and to maintain against every man the primacy of the Roman Church and the royalty of St. Peter. I will visit the threshold of the Apostles every three years, either in person or by my deputy, unless I be absolved by apostolic dispensation...So help me God and these holy Gospels." (Wilkins, Concilia Angliae, II, 199).

Chief Justice Bracton (1260) lays down the civil law of this country thus: "It is to be noted concerning the jurisdiction of superior and inferior courts, that in the first place as the Lord Pope has ordinary jurisdiction over all in spirituals, so the king has, in the realm, in temporals." The line of demarcation between things spiritual and temporal is in many cases blurred and uncertain; the two powers often overlap, and conflicts are unavoidable. During five hundred years such conflicts were frequent. Their very recurrence, however, proves that England acknowledged the papal supremacy, for it requires two to make a quarrel. The complaint of one side was always that the other encroached upon its rights. Henry VIII himself, in 1533, still pleaded in the Roman Courts for a divorce. Had he succeeded, the supremacy of the Pope would not have found a more strenuous defender. It was only after his failure that he questioned the authority of the tribunal to which he had himself appealed. In 1534 he was, by Act of Parliament, made the Supreme Head of the English Church. The bishops, instead of swearing allegiance to the Pope, now swore allegiance to the King, without any saving clause. Blessed John Fisher was the only bishop who refused to take the new oath; his martyrdom is the first witness to the breach of continuity between the old English and the new Anglican Church. Heresy stepped in to widen the breach.

The Thirty-nine Articles teach the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone, deny purgatory, reduce the seven sacraments to two, insist on the fallibility of the Church, establish the king's supremacy, and deny the pope's jurisdiction in England. Mass was abolished, and the Real Presence; the form of ordination was so altered to suit the new views on the priesthood that it became ineffective, and the succession of priests failed as well as the succession of bishops. (See ANGLICAN ORDERS.) Is it possible to imagine that the framers of such vital alternations thought of "continuing" the existing Church? When the hierarchical framework is destroyed, when the doctrinal foundation is removed, when every stone of the edifice is freely rearranged to suit individual tastes, then there is no continuity, but collapse. The old façade of Battle Abbey still stands, also parts of the outer wall, and one faces a stately, newish, comfortable mansion; green lawns and shrubs hide old foundations of church and cloisters; the monks' scriptorium and storerooms still stand to sadden the visitor's mood. Of the abbey of 1538, the abbey of 1906 only keeps the mask, the diminished sculptures and the stones--a fitting image of the old Church and the new.

Dr. James Gairdner, whose "History of the English Church in the 16th Century" lays bare the essentially Protestant spirit of the English Reformation, in a letter on "Continuity" (reproduced in the Tablet, 20 January, 1906), shifts the controversy from historical to doctrinal ground. "If the country," he says, "still contained a community of Christians--that is to say, of real believers in the great gospel of salvation, men who still accepted the old creeds, and had no doubt Christ died to save them--then the Church of England remained the same as before. The old system was preserved, in fact all that was really essential to it, and as regards doctrine nothing was taken away except some doubtful scholastic propositions."

LDS NPOV Rewrite

I have done a major rewrite of the LDS section. I believe that it is now NPOV, and would appreciate comments from anyone who still has problems with the text. If I don't hear anything in a while, I will remove the POV tag. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes to the LDS section. First, the NPOV tag was added anonymously on 5 March 2006 by 202.1.165.40 with no discussion on the discussion page or any comment on the change itself. Secondly, the changes made to supposedly "correct" the NPOV were not relevant to any NPOV issue and greatly confused the section. Some comments were erroneous, some were irrelevant, and the text contained spelling errors. If there is an actual NPOV issue and not just vandalism, let's discuss it and correct it properly. Bhludzin 05:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the LDS section is too long and has much irrelevant material. The LDS position could be summed up much more succinctly by saying that 1) we believe that Peter & the apostles were given the apostolic keys by Christ; 2) at some point (probably around the time that the original 12 were all martyred/died) the succession was broken due to changes in doctrine (LDS belief in Great Apostasy) and improper transmission of the keys; 3) Peter, James, and John as corporal beings appeared to Joseph Smith and restored to him the original apostolic keys given to them; 4) all licensed members of the priesthood (most male Mormons over age 12) can trace their ordination in an unbroken line ("Priesthood Line of Authority") to Joseph Smith, and hence to Peter and Christ (as we believe). #3 is somewhat oversimplified because, according to our understanding, Peter, James, & John (& thence the other apostles) received some of their authority not from Christ directly but from Moses and Elijah on the Mt. of Transfiguration, and Joseph Smith likewise received the same authority from Moses and Elijah in the same manner as he received it from Peter, James, & John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.59.83 (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

What is the point of the laconic final section? It seems like a bunch of unsupported assertions rather irrelevant to the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lostcaesar (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 June 2006.

Well, the assertions aren't irrelevant, as they explain why JW's reject this doctrine. To see whether they're supported, one would have to investigate the references. Assuming the references confirm that the JW's make these claims, they're fine. One reason this might be worth including is because the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is a significant challenge to the JW's, Mormons, and any other denomination that has deliberately made a complete break with the historic church. Wesley 16:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the bulleted text is in stark contrast to the rest of the article; I am altering it to paragraph-style text. I will leave the citations to Reasoning from the Scriptures, although they themselves seem unsupported. Jasoncpetty 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the big picture here, Jehovah's Witnesses very much do believe in the Protestant slant of apostolic succession. While not giving face value to that term (to avoid being compared to papal ruling class), their ruling class is the Governing Body of about 12 or so men that in practice exercise the same ruling authority as the first century apostles. Their justification for broken linage is similar with other Protestants in that they claim "restored truth." This entire heading needs to be corrected to remove bias or entirely removed.

I reverted the last two edits because they really need source material. I have never heard of the JW's governing body refered to as a form of apostolic succession.George 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

George, I attached a couple reference quoting various materials to back the point. Whoever wrote this header needs to fully study up on apostolic succession, how it's defined, and it's various forms, there shouldn't be much doubt that the term applies to the WT as well (or any Christian organization that claims exclusive succession to previous channels operated by God). Writing this JW header without even mentioning the Faithful and Discreet Slave offers a complete disservice to what this entire Wiki page is about, namely that all these different denominations have their own view of how the "truth" was handed to them and how they now justify their ruling authority, that's what Apostolic Succession is all about. The Society teaches that the real "truth" was lost very soon after the death of the apostles to apostasy, and that only until this modern 1914 era under the guidance of the Faithful and Discreet Slave (more accurately: governing body) was that original truth of Jesus and the apostles restored... in that manner they are claiming exclusive succession to the Apostles. It can be proven also, that collectively they feel emboldened to exercise the same ruling authority that only the apostles would have had privilege to. You should know though, that I don't think it's likely that we'll find inside references where the Watchtower Society itself directly applies the term "Apostolic Succession" to the organization, as it seems to have a negative connotation to them (similar to how the term "Christendom" will never be used positively by the Society, even though by the strictest sense of definition Jehovah's Witnesses are very much a part of Christendom). The references on this page for the Society's contempt of Apostolic Succession are immaterial, as it's used to exclusively to attack the Catholics, it should be noted that the Catholic's view of apostolic succession is only one narrow aspect on this page, and in reality and practice the Society believes in a form of Protestant apostolic succession itself. If anything all those bulleted points criticizing the Catholic view succession should be removed and added to Catholic criticism page, as it's not appropriate here. -Ken 15 May 2007

This reference does not refer ro apostolic succession anywhere. At (very) best it could be a see also but without A S content it just shouldn't be here --BozMo talk 14:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Anglican orders

I wonder if some supporting documentation can be found for this anonymous addition regarding Anglican orders?

The Reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York (1896) effectively demolished avery one of Leo's arguments and pointed out that his own arguments to nullify Anglican Orders nullified his own. The vote about Anglican Orders was reported as 4 against, 2 in favor and 2 abstentions, but this was a lie: it was a tie broken by the vote of the Pope as revealed when the Vatican Archives were opened. Duschene the French church historian and the Italian Jesuit theologian, two members of the Papal Commission to investigate the validity of Anglican Orders, warned the Pope that a decision against validity was a "Galileo Case."

Wesley 16:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a quite old comment, that was never responded to, but I've been told (by a Roman Catholic Priest VERY versed on the subject) that the vote was 91-91 (182 theologians voiced opinions) on the validity of Anglican orders. Bill Ward 20:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W.E.Ward.III (talk • contribs).

If the cardinals had decided that Anglican orders were valid, this would have presumably caused problems when it came to their ambitions for "the Conversion of England"? Millbanks (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, yes, the Vatican Archives demonstrated a tie that was broken by the Pope. What is more that they "pointed out that his own arguments to nullify Anglican Orders nullified his own." is cited now and could even be expanded on.

SECisek 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternative lines of succession

I reverted the rather lengthy parenthetical statement querying why Anglicans might be interested in establishing alternative lines of succession. My thoughts are that by "adding-in" a recognised line, combined with the changes to ordinals could in future lead to a "way around" Apostolicae Curae, neither "side" would have to admit that they were previously in the wrong, but RCs could recognise Anglican orders as being valid. However, I can't think of an encyclopaedic way of phrasing this. David Underdown 15:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Historic episcopate

...seems to cover much the same ground as this article. Time for a merge? TSP 10:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This idea went nowhere but is a quite good one. Anybody else agree? SECisek 04:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Apostolic Succession: A Roman Invention or Divine Institution?

No, this link does not belong here. It's a Geocities page, for crying out loud; someone's personal webspace. I actually agree with it, but that doesn't matter. This is an essay intended to prove a point, not a neutral analysis of the relevant sources by a noted scholar. I have no idea who this Adam S. Miller is or what a "Tower of David Ministry" might be, or why his opinions are important to the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - respectfully. Many external links are to articles that attempt to or "intended to prove a point." What's wrong with that? And where is stated in Wikipedia policy that the purpose of such links is only to provide "a neutral analysis of the relevant sources by a noted scholar?" I dont think such a restriction exists. As for Mr. Miller's "opinions," they are most certainly in accord with Catholic teaching in this area. And to that extent, they are indeed important and very relevant to this article. Delta x 03:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:EL and WP:RS. We don't know who this guy is, we don't know what he or "Tower of David Ministry" represents, we don't know his qualifications. He's not a reliable source. And there's nothing about this that makes it a particularly desireable link -- it doesn't describe, on an official level, the POV of any notable group. It represents a POV, so it's not a neutral source of information not included in the article, which would qualify it regardless of the above. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record: Although I do agree with the substance of Mr. Miller's article, I do not however, agree with his interpratation of the Churches oft misunderstood teaching regarding "no salvation outside the Church" or Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Delta x 04:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read the site in detail, but this again doesn't matter. I only mentioned that I agree with so you knew I wasn't arguing against including the link on ideological grounds. I assumed you generally agreed with it or you would not have added it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's just let this one ride. I found an alternate source; an article entitled "Scott Hahn on the Papacy"[1] which deals with the office of the the Papacy vis-à-vis the Dynastic Succession in the Old Testament( see Isaiah 22:15-24 ). Awareness of this concept of Dynastic succession will, I believe, provide the reader with important (if not essential) background/contextual information needed for a much fuller understanding and appreciation of the idea of apostolic succession. Agreed? Delta x 07:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As a reference, the answers to TCC's questions about "who this Adam S. Miller is or what a 'Tower of David Ministry' might be," can be found here at the Tower of David Ministry homepage, which is a lay apostolate founded by Mr. Miller. And here is an article from Catholic Answers explaining just exactly WHAT IS THE LAY APOSTOLATE? cf.[2] I understand of course, that linking to a particular one of these lay apostolate’s, despite whatever other value it might have for a given article, is not always appropriate, and may, in some instances, even be a violation of Wikipedia guidelines/policies. Delta x 22:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand about the "lay apostolate". In this particular case, how is it any different from "random Catholic guy with a webpage"? Not to be rude, but that's really the issue here. On the subject of the article itself we are not really in disagreement. Your newer link appears perfectly acceptable IMO, as it's an article written by a prominent, recognized Catholic author and can therefore be presumed a reliable source. (I do hope the site has permission to publish it, and so it won;t be going away anytime soon.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In order for me to respond adequately to your question, I'm afraid you'll just have to wait until I finish writing my article entitled Random Catholic Guy with a Webpage! Delta x 04:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, I think I have one or two good cites for that.... TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Great! Now I've got my external links section! Delta x 06:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church in lead section

(from history) 05:39 Apostolic Succession (diff; hist) . . Csernica (Talk | contribs) (rv and wik. "Universal" is a poor gloss for "Catholic". The link explains it. "Catholic Church" is not a synonym for the organization headed by the Pope of Rome.)

I agree that it is not ideal. However I disagree with the current wording. The lead section should be straightforward and guide a general reader into the article without relying on clicking any links. A general reader should be expected to know nothing about Apostolic Succession; and therefore little about Catholic ecclesiology)

It is absolutely right to link to One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church

One point I feel quite strongly about, is that the last sentence should say the Catholic Church, not a Catholic Church. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That may well be the better wording, but we may need to collect a consensus on it. I'm also worried that it may not be entirely right. The Anglican communion, for example, considers itself a Catholic church, which is to say a local church possessing the attribute of catholicity, if I understand their position correctly. (I might not.)

The ambiguity of the word "Catholic" in your post means I don't know quite what you're saying. Do you mean Roman Catholic theology, or those elements of theology which churches that consider themselves Catholic tend to share? TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Ahh, thanks for explaining, Csernica/TCC. I wasn't aware of the Anglican preference for "a Catholic church." Do you know where I can read more about that?
2. By the word "Catholic" I was not referring to theology used by a communion, but the membership of the local church in the church instituted by God. I think by including the piped link in your edit, you have hit the nail on the head. To make it plain to readers that the meaning and link differ from the link earlier in the paragraph, I propose not piping it, thus:

In any event, all these communions recognize Apostolic Succession as a determining criterion of a particular group's legitimacy as part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism#Catholic and Reformed does a reasonably good job of explaining the issue. As with many other issues in Anglicanism there is a range of acceptable opinion, so nailing down a definitive answer isn't easy. There is, in any event, a sizeable faction that considers itself Catholic.

But I might even say the same is true within Eastern Orthodoxy. Each local church, both on the national level and on the level of the individual diocese, is a local catholic church. It's not actually incorrect to also say each one is the Catholic Church, but unless the reader already knows what is meant by that I think it can lead to confusion.

I agree that not piping the link would be good. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church reference

Minor alteration: In the list of churches I altered the "Catholic Church" reference to "Roman Catholic Church." I assume the reason for omitting "Roman" here was not to alienate the Eastern rites but since many churches consider themselves part of the catholic Church using this term to refer to one church in such a formal listing can be potentially offensive. I realize that "Catholic Church" is commonly used in many informal settings but it seems we should be careful in this setting. --Mcorazao 04:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the Eastern Rites of the Church are part of the "Catholic Church." But Not the "ROMAN" Catholic Church. The Word "Roman" describes the Rite (Latin-Rite), which the other churches are NOT part of therefore, the appropriate term to use is :CATHOLIC CHURCH (including its rites). Jyoz

Sorry, I had not kept checking for a response and missed the fact that one had been entered.

Obviously there is a debate here on the "right" terminology but let me state my opinion.

• The "Catholic" has never been uniquely claimed by the Church of Rome. The fact that in Western countries the term is, by default, interpreted to refer to that communion is a matter of the power of that Church for the last millenium but the so-called Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox communions have never given up their right to use this name. There is no objective reason to say that they are not entitled to it (any more than it is objectively correct to say that the Church of Rome is not Orthodox).
• It is common in many scholarly circles to use "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to the entire communion, "Latin Rite" to refer to those directly under the supervision of Rome, and "Eastern Rite" for the local churches in the East. I realize that many of this communion do not like this nomenclature but

1. There is no universally accepted nomenclature.
2. The Pope does accept this nomenclature although it is not preferred.

• Although I certainly agree that Wikipedia should attempt to name institutions based on the preferences of those institutions, Wikipedia should draw the line at deliberately allowing POV. In this case there are multiple institutions that do and have from the beginning called themselves the "Catholic Church" so it is POV to favor one over the other. "Roman Catholic", "Eastern Orthodox", etc. are generally accepted by scholars as "neutral" terms. Granted these are not universally accepted but they have the advantage that they are widely accepted (even to a limited extent in those institutions) and they are moderately neutral (there are no terms that are completely neutral).

--Mcorazao 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

While I KNOW that it's contentious to some Roman Catholics, can we at least be consistent in the article in referring to the Roman Catholic church since it is NOT an article solely about the Roman Catholic church, but includes information about MANY churches that consider themselves Catholic? Anything less than saying Roman Catholic implies either slang (Catholic as shorthand for Roman Catholic) or POV if someone interprets it differently. Bill Ward 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W.E.Ward.III (talk • contribs).

I, too, KNOW that it's contentious to some people. It really comes down to context as I have stated elsewhere. This can go on forever. That said - just as important as context, remember courtesy and compromise. Using "Catholic" to mean "Roman Catholic" in the same document as "Old Catholic" or "Anglican" isn't just confusing and unprofessional, it is also rude. The Vatican has the courtsey and sense not to do this:[3].

Why would any editor at WP insist on it? The whole issue should be avoided with different language when possible and context should be looked at when it is not possible.

Once more, it is about common sense, context, and respect. This isn't the 16th century, people. As an English speaker, I feel that in most cases, for clarity, it wise to use Roman Catholic in reference to the Church that is in union with the Rome. That said, if terms are properly defined, yes, Catholic Church can be made to clearly mean Roman Catholic in some articles. That HAS TO BE DONE however, it is not enough to go through an article and delete the word "Roman" again and again. This article is one that really needs the distinction of the "Roman Catholic Church".

SECisek 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I edited the "Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican Churches" section... I don't see a problem with the corrections to Roman Catholic there, but there is still a problem with the TITLE, which also then needed to be changed. I'm not satisfied that the "New" title is ok, "Roman Catholic, Othodox, Anglican and other Catholic Churches". The reason is POV; depending on your POV, the phrase "other Catholic" is wrong; if you subscribe to the POV that only the ROMAN Catholic church is truly "Catholic" (which some Roman Catholics subscribe to), I'm stating a POV that they are wrong. If I simply leave it as "Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican Churches" (my first thought), I've neglected to mention that there are other churches than those three listed (such as Old Catholic); if I leave the title alone, again, technically, it's POV; "Catholic" is equally descriptive to some folks of the Anglican church, for example (and yes, I count myself among that group, but that's outside what we're trying to do here), which means that the title is repeating itself, or that it takes the POV that Anglicanism is NOT Catholic. In other words, I can't figure out ANY truly neutral POV title that includes the other churches besides the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican church, which the article truly requires, other than "Churches that self-describe themself in whole or part as Catholic or Othodox", which is a totally unsatisfying title. Anyone have a better idea? Bill Ward 16:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W.E.Ward.III (talk • contribs).

Wow, didn't mean to start an Edit war on the issue; while I agree the new section TITLE is awful, at least the rest was a good correction to make the article more neutral and concise in it's terminology. Shame whoever keeps undoing the changes can't even SIGN UP to take credit for their work. Bill Ward 23:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W.E.Ward.III (talk • contribs).

I made a change. Lengthy, but maybe the only way to do it. -- SECisek 19:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Different succession lines in the catholic church

There should also be some sentences about the different succession lines (de Rebiba, Uchanski, Delle Rovere, de Bovet and von Bodman line) in the catholic church, like it is made in the German article about the same subject. --msvj (89.217.208.75) 09:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad references

The Lutheran Church section claims that Rome says that some Lutheran Churches have maintained the apostolic succession. However: one reference points to an unofficial Nestorian Church site, the other one to a rev. Tony Begonja of an Independent Catholic church. That is an independent church that once sected off from Rome Catholicism. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 19:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Swede and Finish Lutherans claim, possibly correctly, to have succesion. Rome does not recognize the claim, however. Anglicans certainly have succesion, even if they didn't at one point, it is firmly restablished now through Orthdox lines. Rome declared the line invalid in the XIX century, but recent anglican priests who have converted to Rome have NOT been re-ordanied consistantly. SECisek 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Position

Should there really be a line about how the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't recognize Catholic or Oriental Orthodox Apostolic Succession? If so, this absolutely needs a citation, but as far as I know there is really no official position on the matter, and instead many different Bishops take a variety of stances. For example, one of the E.O. Metropolitan Archbishops of America is quoted on www.orthodoxnews.com as saying that Catholic Sacraments and Holy Orders are recognized as "valid but uncanonical." (I have paraphrased). The section about the E.O. concept of "economy" seems like a semi-informed interpretation of this theological idea, because it fails to recognize that non-Orthodox Trinitarian Baptisms are recognized as valid not simply by economy, but in actuality. Said Catholic_Orthodox"

No, there isn't any one verdict. I will correct and cite.

SECisek 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Methodists

I have deleted the following (and why):

This distinction may seem meaningless today, but it is actually quite substantive given the circumstances of the 1700s. Were Wesley actually consecrated a bishop by Erasmus, he would not have been able to publicly affirm such without falling prey to the stipulations of the English Acts of Supremacy (1534 & 1559)

The Acts of Supremacy were superceded by the Act of Toleration in 1689. So there is no truth to the thought that:

To keep from being charged with treason, and to keep his head, it is argued that Wesley skirted the question altogether by offering a "non-denial denial." Given the circumstances, many assert that this argument actually makes some sense: Wesley was asked if he had been made a bishop by Erasmus; his response was that he had not requested consecration ... which actually doesn't answer the original question! After all, episcopal consecration could have been Erasmus' idea, not Wesley's. If Wesley had affirmed that he had been made a bishop, or even if he had just confessed that he had requested consecration, he would have been placing himself in jeopardy of treason against the crown!

This just isn't true and was clearly fabricated in retrospect by someone who did not know all the facts of the times. Again, non-confomists were not in peril of their lives in the time of Wesley. Moving on...

Wesley was a self-professed Whig and a faithful "son of the English Church". To publicly violate the Oaths of Supremacy would have been entirely repugnant to him on both political and theological grounds. Hence, the argument concludes that Wesley obfuscated the entire issue by distancing himself from the question and by answering in such a way as to deflect further inquiry. Despite the beliefs of many Methodists and other Anglicans -- beliefs which were finally articulated after Wesley's death -- it worked; while the question never died out entirely, Wesley remained a presbyter of the Church of England until the day he died.

In fact, no he didn't. In 1784 the Bishop of London refused to ordain a group of preachers who were being sent to the United States, so Wesley ordained them himself. This forced him to operate outside the C of E and almost certainly outside of apostolic succession. Wesley later announced that same year that he and his societies "operated independently of any control of the Church of England". Wesley then drew up a legal constitution that year and that was that - much to the initial disapointment of his brother Charles. Read the much respected Telford bio: http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/telford/telford_ch18.htm

SECisek 07:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hope this clears that up.

Methodists claim the same apostolic continuity accorded the Anglican Church. When the Church of England recalled its clergy from America, this created an ecclesiastical crisis. Children were going without baptism, no one could receive the Eucharist. To an Anglican (like John Wesley), this was a serious spiritual emergency. Performing what he saw as a necessary emergency ordination, Wesley ordained presbyters for America and one Bishop, Thomas Coke. As such, the apostolic succession succeeds from John Wesley by his ordination by Baxter Tenison, Bishop of Oxford. Obviously, this depends on whether or not one recognizes Anglican apostolicity. See Methodist Apostolicity Ajgwm10 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But the point is that Apostolic Succession is generally perceived as only being transmitted by bishops directly, Wesley could not do this on "behalf" of his bishop, as he was only a priest himself. So regardless of the overall state of Anglican Succession, this would not be a valid continuation of Apostolic Succession - although he did of course appeal to apparent precedents in the early church. This issue continues to be one of the major stumbling blocks to "reunification" of Methodist and Anglican churches (in England at least). David Underdown (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

Well they were certainly bold - I'm not quite sure where the suppsoed discussion actually is and there are some problems with the new version of the article.

Several members of the Anglican Communion are also part of the Porvoo Communion which is far from clear from the references to both in the re-structured article, and the Lutheran part fo the COmmunion largely overlaps with the Lutheran churches already specifically cited in the article (which is one of the reasons the communion came about reasonably easily). The structure of some the headings is not entirely typical of the norm for Wikipedia articles either. David Underdown 18:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Organization

• 1. INTRO. When first noticed, this article appeared to contain a mix of quality, but arranged in a jumble of different contributions. What follows are several suggestions which I would follow unless dissuaded otherwise.

• 2. SEQUENCE. It is my understanding that Apostolic Succession is an ancient Church doctrine. As such, this ancient doctrine should be addressed first. However, the prior article instead leads with a very different, rival, and much later interpretation of the ancient doctrine. I opine that the traditional interpretation should lead; or if not by its position of being the original doctrine, then chronology should determine the order of presentation in the article.

• 3. ORGANIZATION. Some of the text is an ill-organized jumble. An improvement would be to rearrange it in a logical and substantive order, and to put it under headings so that the reader could readily go to where he or she wanted, or at least see the overall organization at a glance.

• 4. BY CHURCH. Another improvement would be to make the subtitles refer to the position of the various Christian Churches. Because the traditional doctrine concerns the ecclesia, such an organization would be beneficial.

• 5. PUZZLES, INCONSISTENCIES. The context of this article contains many patent inconsistencies, e.g., if it is under the umbrella of the Anglican Communion, which (the article itself notes) claims traditional Apostolic Succession, why is the article's sequence organized putting what I think are Calvinist (or "dissenting") principles first?

• 6. MY PRIOR EDITS. Unfortunately I became preoccupied and could not stay with one of my Wikipedia edits, but returned 3 days later to complete it. I thought I had noted that the edit was IN PROGRESS in the edit notes, but perhaps that edit did not get saved. For this delay I apologize.

In the editing that I have done I do not think I eliminated any content in the text. I did move text from one location to another, but I do not think I eliminated any content at all--with the possible exception of phrases that were repetitive of text existing elsewhere in the article, or making concize the ranbling or verbose. (As a general practice, I try to save all existing information and points of view in an article, sometimes putting them into a footnote.)

Upon my return I noticed that for the first time (I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but have created several pages and substantially reworked others) I was completely reversed. Not knowing how else to proceed, I undid the undoing of my prior edit, and proceeded to complete it. In the meantime, another person had come in to block my ongoing work.

• 7. DISCUSSION & CONTEXT. I did not realize how much interest this article had generated, until I came to the discussion page. I am puzzled at how many very good contributions there are to this discussion page. Yet the article page itself remains relatively underdeveloped.

I obviously remain uninformed as to many things about this article and its discussion page, as well as its context within Wikipedia. I will attempt to remedy in part this situation.

Elfelix 19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

While I was composing the above, David Underdown added his next above.

Because of the intervening blockage of my edit of today, in order to save my text I had no alternative but to merge it with the intervening edit (the "undone" text). To be diplomatic, to follow a Christian ethic, and to avoid if possible any edit conflict, I did not delete any of the said "undone" text, but merely inserted my newly rewritten edit into the "undone" text. Therefore, there is indeed some overlap and repetition as the current text combines in large part two different versions. As to the Porvoo Communion text, that missing piece I intend to address. Common ground can be achieved.

Elfelix 20:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that you made no comments here before beginning your initial edits so no-one knew you were planning to make major changes. When I then found the page left in what seemed a rather curious state with question marks dotted through it and visible cmmentary on the article text, the only thing I could see to do was revert to the previous stable version. I probably should have put a ocmment here or on your talkpage to explain my action, but I was a little pushed for time at that point. When you then had opportunity to come back, it appeared that you had just reverted to the previous strange state, but not carried out any further work, so that got reverted again. For reference, if from "history" you click on a previous version, you ca then just edit that, without having to make it the current version of the article. If you wish to leave comments in the text, you can hide them by preceding them with < ! - - (without spaces) and following them with --> these are then not visible in the publihed version of the article, but can be seen when you switch to editing mode. It is also worth placing the template {{In use}} at the top of the article if you inend to make a major change. David Underdown 09:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments, as well as your suggestions on Wikipedia editing techniques. I did realize on Friday the 14th that there may have been several misunderstandings in the process. Again, I thought I had left some indication that it was in process on Tuesday(evidently I failed to save it), so that the responsibility is mine. (Then I had thought to return within several hours). Your information on how better to proceed in this and similar situations is appreciated. Elfelix 18:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

AS TO THE CONTENT, the article as it now stands has patent repetition, in that the first two headings are repeated again in the next sections. I reorganized the information (without I think deleting any points of content), and placed it instead under headings indicative of the several different church communities referenced, or repositioned it. I propose, therefore to delete the first two headings; if this is done, the body of the article will begin with the heading entitled "The Traidtional Doctrine" to which title I would add "of Episcopal continuity".

1). The position of now-existing lead heading about "doctrinal continuity" is relatively recent; it was moved to its lead position April 9, 2007, at 5:21, "moved section up" by ANUPAM (otherwise an interesting contributor). I have not noticed any explanation given, nor comments justifying its premier position. The article was started, I believe, in December of 2001. Again I think, in the context of Apostolic Succession, that the "doctrinal continuity" theology is derivitive to that of "espicopal continuity", which thus logically and ontologically preceeds it, and in the context chronologically prior as well. Also this section is repeated (in large part with the identical phrasing) in the "against the traditional" section. (There is a prior subsection on institutional orientation, which might be written differently, yet it is thought to pass muster as a neutral point of view as it stands.)

2). The next now-existing section (concerning the Churches which rely in part on the ecclesiastical authority of Apostolic Succession) is also replicated under the Churches "claiming" heading, which then breaks the discussion down into subheadings named after the churches discussed. Again, this replication uses for the most part identical language and phrasing, although the sequencing has been alterred so to allign the text to the appropriate church community.

3). Also, the now-existing second introductory paragraph would be repeated in the following proposed text, i.e., the "Traditional Doctrine" section or the "claiming" section. In general, I favor having a very short introductory paragraph, for ease of future edits.

Elfelix 18:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unaware of the above, I saw all the repetitions and removed what to me looked like older content repeated and improved below it. I tried to retain (i.e. move to the appropriate new sections) any improvements made to the original text in the meantime, such as the additions to the Lutheran info. The result still looks unfinished; Elfelix may want to return and continue the work from here in the knowledge that at least one other editor would appreciate it... Pobidoq 13:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of context comment in Anglican section?

In spite of these change, the language of Pope Leo's statement was reinforced in 1998 in the accompanying commentary to Ad Tuendam Fidem:

With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations... [29]

I've been waiting a few weeks after first reading this to comment on it because it seemed so obviously out of context that this statement would end up being pulled.

The context of link 29 is a discussion of Papal Infallability, and Ex Cathedra pronouncements by the Pope; it's not a statement reflecting current Roman Catholic positions, per se (though it MAY still so reflect it), but is instead an affirmantion that the statement was true WHEN IT WAS MADE. I can't see how this statement, therefore, is relevant to current positions with respect to Anglicanism after the Old Catholic church became involved; if forced to make a judgement, the Roman Catholic church would probably have an opposite pronouncement on the validity of Anglican Orders today.

Therefore, should this be in this article at all? Bill Ward 18:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole point is that the 1998 statement affirmed the original one about the invalidity of Anglican Orders, so it is still the stance of the Roman Catholic Church today. David Underdown 18:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly the point; the statement had NOTHING TO DO with the invalidity of Anglican Orders; it had to do with Ex Cathedra pronouncements of the Pope, and Papal Infallibility. It says thtat when the Pope made that pronouncement in 1896, it was correct (Per the RCC), authoritative, and not subject to further debate. However, it says NOTHING about the current validity or invalidity of Anglican Orders, because it's not TALKING about that; it's an example of a well known Ex Cathedra Papal Bull. David, I've read a lot of what you've written, but the fact is that this is a non-sequitor because it's out of context. It may still be that the RCC would agree with this statement if it reexamined it, based on the current situation vis a vis the Old Catholic Church and the Anglican Church. Some evidence supports the assertion that the RCC would NOT agree with that statement; that's actually discussed IN THIS ARTICLE. It seems ... wrong, I suppose... to have that in the article when it's a red herring statement. Bill Ward 02:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Ward is incorrect. The statement had NOTHING TO DO Ex cathedra pronouncements. Infallibility here refers to the magistarium, not papal infallibility which was not invoked in the 1896 statement and really could not be as the validity of the Anglican orders is not really a matter of faith or morales which are the only two types of papal pronouncements that can be made Ex cathdra for infallibility. -- SECisek 02:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The bit quoted in the article, which is directly from the referenced document (actually refering to the commentary on JPII's Bull, not the Bull itself, commentary written by one Cardinal Ratzinger..), explicitly refers to the continued validity of Leo's original statement on the invalidity of Anglican orders. Now the situation is slightly confused because all(?) CofE bishops can now claim additional routes of Apostolic Succession via the Old Cathloics, whose Orders and Succession are recognised by the Vatican, so even if they were invalid at the time of Leo's original statement, there is some wriggle room because a) the CofE Ordinal has been revised since then; b)"Restoration" (from the RC point of view) of Succession via the Old Catholics. on the other hand, ordination of women has muddied the waters the other way. David Underdown 08:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Apostolicity as doctrinal continuity"?

I don’t understand this header: “Apostolicity as doctrinal continuity”. Apostolicity and doctrinal continuity are two distinct issues. Should the section perhaps be renamed to something like “The importance of apostolicity” or “Apostolicity and doctrinal continuity”?LCP 15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Big Rewrite

I'm looking through the big rewrite going on today, and looked at a few things, while I don't have a LOT to say, yet, this stood out like a sore thumb:

"that claim the historic episcopate include the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Independent Catholic, the Anglican Communion, and several Lutheran Churches (see below). The first two churches teach that Apostolic Succession is maintained through the consecration of their Bishops in unbroken personal succession back to the apostles.[8] . The Anglican and some Lutheran Churches do not specifically teach this but exclusively practice episcopal ordination."

The last sentence is what got my attention the most. As an Episcopalian, all I can say is that that sentence is WRONG; at least in the Episcopal church, the concept of Apostolic Succession is quite specifically taught; all current and former bishops in the church were ordained by other bishops, who were ordained by bishops, etc., all the way back to the Roman Catholic Church in England pre-Henry VIII; while the Roman Catholic Church says that there was a lapse because of the particular orders given during the time of King James, the Anglican church would specifically be included in the groups that teach that Apostolic Succession is maintained in their Bishops in unbroken succession. In other words, this paragraph is pure RCC: "These churches claim it, these churches have it, these churches try to practice it." Or am I reading something or interpreting something incorrectly? Bill Ward 21:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see #Recent changes above for some background. Regarding your question, why not be WP:BOLD and edit the article accordingly? (Preferably adding one or more citations of WP:V WP:RS sources.) pobidoq 00:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the chagnes to the ordinal made under Edward VI which are the main issue, there were no chagnes to the prayerbook under either James. David Underdown 09:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic style - "no ____ would deny ____"

"At the same time, no defender of the personal apostolic succession of bishops would deny the importance of doctrinal continuity in the Church."

Could this be rewritten into more encyclopedic style? It seems like a subjective assessment by the author, and cites no evidence. Indeed, is it even possible to provide evidence to support any statement of the form "no _______ would deny ________"?

I'm sure the general meaning of the statement could be conveyed in a more encyclopedic style. Quoting another commentator expressing a similar opinion, or making a less universal statement (perhaps citing some statistics or commentary). DonkeyKong64 (Mathematician in training) 07:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed for Anglican section

I've often heard this fact mentioned, but I have yet to find a source that states this. Can anyone find a citation that supports the following sentence:

"All current Anglican bishops have been consecrated in succession through Old Catholic or Orthodox lines whose holy orders are recognized by the Holy See."

Dgf32 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I saw this. I have often heard it, as well. I have even heard it from the mouth of priests. I believe it is true - but a citation...I'll have to give it some thought. We need one there, for certain. -- SECisek (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

From looking at this very complete list (Succession of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (U.S.)), I don't see any evidence of Old Catholic or Orthodox participation in consecrations at least within the U.S. Episcopal Church. Dgf32 (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Old Catholic, Orthodox - and, in some cases, Luthern - Bishops are in addition to the three Anglican bishops who would lay on hands. This article doesn't really back up the point, but it discusses a part of the situation: Prague 2002. Clearly, the practice of using Old Catholic and Orthodox Bishops takes place. Secisek (talk 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Graham Leonard, this certainly happened as I understand that it is the reason that he was only conditionally ordained when he crossed the Tiber after the introduction of women priests. Work out who he himself ordained and... Perhaps it would be better to change the text to soemthing like "many Church of England bishops" as it's difficult to know how widespred this is across the Communion. David Underdown (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We know all Anglican bishops don't have Old Catholic, Orthodox, or Polish National Catholic, apostolic succession because most ECUSA bishops have no apostolic succession from any lines other than Anglican lines form Canterbury and York. In fact, I haven't found any evidence of Old Catholic or Orthodox bishops ever participating in an ECUSA consecration. Have a look at this: Succession of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (U.S.). Does anyone know if such a document exists on Wikipedia or elsewhere for any other Anglican provinces? Dgf32 (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't "know" that because Old Catholic, Orthodox, or Polish National Catholic bishops would be in ADDITION to the three Anglican bishops that a required and listed on the page you cite. I know this from the personal experiences of priests I have spoken with. That said, we need to find a citation. However, we the text sholud imply that all do until we can prove that they all do or some don't. I will restore it. -- Secisek (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point we have no evidence to suggest the following sentence is true:

"Today, Anglican bishops have been consecrated in succession through Old Catholic, Orthodox, and Polish National Catholic Church lines whose holy orders are recognized by the Holy See."

Like you, I've oftern heard this mentioned, but we have no evidence that would justify inclusion in Wikipedia. We can't just have people added unverified claims to articles and then leaving them there until they can be disproved. If there's no citation to support it, it has to go. However, we do have evidence that SOME Anglican bishops have been consecrated in said lines. I'd like to ask you to self-revert where you removed the word some. We can't leave an unverified statement of dubious certainty in the article until we have a citation. That's why I'm asking you to please revert your last edit. We're in agreement here, and we have the same goal, to find the proper citations. We just can't leave misleading information in the article in the mean time. Thank you. Dgf32 (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement as I revised it was correct. Anglican bishops have been consecrated through those lines. It doesn't say 'all' or 'some' it just says Anglican bishops, which is known to be true. It is no longer relavent as I reworked and cited the objectionable point a second time. -- SECisek (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a citation so quickly. Sorry if I got a little testy. Dgf32 (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole article is in very poor condition and needs much work. Perhaps we can all keep on it and try to improve it. -- SECisek (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sees of Peter

The article listed Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch as sees of Peter. To my knowledge, only Rome and Antioch have ever been considered to be sees of Peter, so I removed the reference to Alexandria being such. Alexandria is traditionally regarded as the See of Apostle Mark the Evangelist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deusveritasest (talk • contribs) 06:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead Section

I think we should remove the following paragraph from the lead.

"The Roman Catholic Church further asserts that Jesus Christ gave Saint Peter a unique primacy among the apostles, which has been passed on in the office of the Papacy. Eastern Orthodox theology and ecclesiology teaches that each bishop is equal to the other bishops, even the Ecumenical Patriarch, who is first amongst others, continuing the ancient practice of the church, who concidered the Roman Pontiff to be first but not superior to the rest of the bishops."

This article is about Apostolic Succession, not the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Does anyone object to this? Dgf32 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it's tied up enough with slight different views of Apostolic Succession that I don't think the two can be entirely separated. Are all bishops the successors equally of all the apostles, or is one bishop uniquely the successor of one apostle in particular? David Underdown (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The article focuses too much on what any given church thinks about the others and gets off topic in a number of places. I support the deletion and would like to see the knife swing some more. -- SECisek (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Church of Ireland

The article refers to "the Anglican Church", but in fact it is the Anglican Communion, a family of churches. I wonder if when those learned gentlemen decided that Anglican orders were invalid, they concentrated too much on the ordination of Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, which they decided was flawed. Perhaps they were not aware that all but two of the Irish bishops of the time accepted the Elizabethan settlement and that there is continuity of succession in the Church of Ireland separate from that in the Church of England and the doubts raised by the consecration of Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury. Millbanks (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And indeed the Church of Scotland. The Wednesday Island (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Episcopal Church perhaps Church of Scotland is presbyterian and has no bishops. The Irish situation is complicated by the union of the English and Irish churches at the same time as the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland - until the Irish church was disestablished they formed a single church. David Underdown (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the Scottish Episcopal Church-- sorry. ECUSA say that their first bishops had apostolic succession through the Scots, iirc. The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Anglican bishops

However, since the promulgation of Apostolicae Curae, Anglican bishops have acquired Old Catholic lines of Apostolic Succession recognized by Rome.

Some have? Many have? Most have? All have? I am left wondering. And is it the Old Catholic lines of apostolic succession which are recognised by Rome, or the Anglicans' acquisition of them? The Wednesday Island (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Catholic Order and Succession is recognised by Rome. Since the Bonn Agreement Old Catholic bishops have participated in Anglican consecrations as additional co-consecrators. Any Anglican bishop directly consecrated by an Old Catholic therefore participates in a valid line of succession, and asuming that the changes to Anglican Ordinals since Edward VI are also accepted by Rome (this hasn't really been tested I don't think), any further Anglican Bishop consecrated by a Bishop with an Old Catholic line would also be valid (as would an ordination as deacon or priest). David Underdown (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So have Old Catholic bishops participated in all Anglican consecrations since Bonn? Does the line of apostolic succession for all current Anglican bishops trace at least partly through the Old Catholic church (or at least something not relying on Matthew Parker)? I know that this is always possible, and it is certainly true for some bishops, but is it true for most or all Anglican bishops? That was the understanding I initially had of that sentence. And the ambiguity is not resolved: the sentence can be read either that the Old Catholics' line of succession is recognised, or the Anglican bishops' ordinations are recognised. The first is beyond doubt, as you say. But although presumably for anyone who believed that the Old Catholic line of succession was valid it should logically follow that an Anglican bishop whose consecration involved an Old Catholic bishop was also in a valid line of succession, nevertheless it appears to be original research to say that the Vatican has suddenly decided that Apostolicae Curae is old news and Anglican bishops are real bishops these days, unless they've actually said so. The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To some extent the ambiguity is deliberate, Old Catholic lines have undoubtedly been obtained, and the Old Catholics themselves are undoubtedly recognised by Rome, to what extent this affects the position laid out in Apostolicae Curae is not really tested (particularly given that as I recall the current Pope expressly upheld its validity in his previous job), except to the extent that some clergy have on crossing the Tiber been only "conditionally ordained", rather than fully reordained into RC orders. In any case the statement in the lead is more fully explained lower down. See also the next section. David Underdown (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Old sources on Anglican orders

This text with sources used to be in the article, but got edited out. Having a look at these sources might be useful.

Today, all Anglican bishops have been consecrated in succession through undisputed Irish and Italian lines of succession. Additionally, Old Catholic and Eastern Orthodox lines whose holy orders are recognized by the Holy See have been introduced into the Anglican lines of succession. The Old Catholic Union of Utrecht is in full communion with Canterbury and Anglicanism since the Bonn Agreement of 1931.

Dgf32 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

RCC vs. CC

This is being discused elsewhere at Wikipedia at the present time. Don't bring this fight to this article. -- Secisek (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Russian Orthodox Episcopal Ordination.jpg

The image File:Russian Orthodox Episcopal Ordination.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Cognate doctrines"

This section has been repeatedly added by an editor, without really addressing the objections I thought I had made clear enough in edit history. It is about things that are, well, not apostolic succession. I can't fathom why it's here, or why this editor insists on adding it. I can't even tell what "cognate doctrines" is supposed to mean. Which doctrines are "cognate" to which other doctrines? The section is rife with POV problems (for example, it uses "apostolic" to mean "having the apostolic succession"; it is principally concerned to argue "defects" in the "contra position"; it says that disagreements about the trinity or incarnation are less important than disagreements about political or social views). The editor says it "corresponds" to the bullets in the "reformation doctrine of apostolic succession" section, but a comparison shows that the bullets are about, in order, claims to unique identity as the true church, diversity of doctrines, contradictory practices, and the canon of Scripture; of these only the second is addressed in the "cognate doctrines" section, and then, in a form of a "tu quoque" fallacy. (Indeed, the entire section, which is supposed to be about "cognate doctrines of apostolic churches" does not really even much mention any doctrines of "apostolic" churches.) The entire article is starting to read like a back-and-forth tennis match, and we don't need more salvos; we need cleanup. I'm deleting the section once more, and requesting the editor to please discuss it before simply re-adding it. Tb (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

CD reply ("Purpose and result")

1. Edit History.

The only points made in edit history were: a) it does not belong here, to which the agreeable response was to move it to form the CD section; b) next, that the newly moved CD was nonetheless not about Apostolic Succession (A.S.), but this is patently untrue, and requires no further response.

2. The CD text.

• Paragraph I. CD concerns demonstrating that A.S. does what is was supposed to do, that is the maintenance of orthodoxy and provision of consistency and continuity of doctrine. CD does so by noting that the apostolic churches have doctrines that are cognate, i.e., that continue to share doctrines with a common origin and cohesion, though imperfectly. Hence, the imperfect success of the original intent of A.S.

• Paragraph II discusses the situation obtaining without A.S. Here the diversity is very great. The misc. examples are required to reify this abstraction. Thus, without A.S. the results are not cognate doctrines. Hence, without A.S. no consistency or continuity.

• Paragraph III questions the very goals of A.S., i.e., why not have a jumble of doctrine from different churches all who claim Christianity? That is clearly the case today. Yet the sky did not fall down with it that way. A footnote cites the constitution of the U.S.A. as in fact guaranteeing such this state of religious affairs. (No P.O.V. here, as this udercuts the favorable aspects of traditional A.S.) Yet, also, A.S. does seem to work in the churches where it functions to fulfill the goal originally set for it: continuity and consistency of doctrine.

• It's all there in the text.

3. "Above discussion".

• A. Cognate. Websters Dictionary: "anything of the same origin, kind, nature, or effect". In linguistics cognate is used to express the relationship of corresponding words in different languages, sharing a common origin and having a similar meaning, e.g., château (French) and castle (English), or rodeo (Spanish) and rodeo (English).
• B. P.O.V.: calling the churches "apostolic churches" who follow the traditional A.S. doctrine is only clear and concise in the context, and is not used to make any point. Without such conventions about context it would take a book to say what "is" means. However, if one were to use such convention to say that if churches do not follow the trad. A.S. then they are not apostolic in doctrine, that would jump to being P.O.V. But that jump is not made.
• B'. Also, per P.O.V. see Paragraph III above.
• C. Which doctrines are cognate: listed are liturgy, Mary, monasticism, and generally those forged in the early centuries; later are mentioned biblical texts, trinity and Christology. Others specifics could be mentioned as well, but were not.
• D. The "above discussion" misstates the CD article, which does not compare theological doctrine vs. social ethical doctrine. It does list several in sequence, but without comment.
• E. CD does not address unique identity. It does address diversity, contradictions, and canon among all the churches not A.S. as opposed to a clustering among churches that are A.S. Thus, the "above discussion" misstates the CD article.
• F. The "above discussion" grossly misstates the CD article when it says toward the end that CD mentions no cognate doctrines of the A.S. churches. Not only, CD lists as counter-examples several non-cognate doctrines of the churches contra A.S.

4. PRDAS (Protestant Reformation definition of Apostolic Succession)

In my view, the PRDAS section, although highly argumentative in attacking persistently the claims made by the apostolic Churches, does fulfill a purpose. There is contention and disagreement in the widespread churches; this PRDAS section articulates one pole of the debate quite well, although with an strongly argumentative style. It does draw an unfounded, slight-of-hand conclusion, which is also exaggerated, at the end. It title is not descriptive of much of its content. But PRDAS should not be deleted, in my view.

5. Critique of the critic.

• The "above discussion" writer may evidence P.O.V. bias when he passes over the PRDAS section, which is clearly argumentative and has remained unchallenged for some time, but then as to the intial "CD", immediately deletes it, saying it doesn't belong there. In agreeable response, the editor (me) moved it to form the new CD section.
• The "a.d." writer then subsequently and rapidly again deletes it, with the unreasonable message that it is not about A.S.
• Despite many change made to CD, the "a.d." writer continues to evidently misread it, or not understand it, but certainly does not fail to delete it.
• Then in the "above discussion" he misstates it several times.
• I must say that the CD has grown better as a result of responding to such blank and even biased criticism, but that on the other hand the critic seems to have gotten worse.
• I suspect that your first reaction to the initial "CD" edit (which did respond to the PRDAS section, which PRDAS is of course an argumentative display, and remains so) was emotional hostility. When it was moved, CD's connection to the PRDAS argument diminished, and diminished again, and again. Yet you deleted quickly without further comment, until your "above discussion". Now I will try to reduce such connection to PRDAS to the bare minimum.
• This article is about Christianity, which in my view means the kingdom of peace, mutual understanding, and love. Please read the new version carefully.
• I hope this helps both of us. Elfelix (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, so many words. To (1), the point is that this is an article about apostolic succession. I meant that it doesn't belong in this article because it is not about apostolic succession, but instead about a criticism of other aspects of churches which don't practice apostolic succession. That makes it at least two removes from the topic of the article. The article is not a comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of different kinds of churches. To (2), the section seems to be intended to argue some point--to take some side--to prove some perspective. I'm grateful for your clarity in your explanation, but please note: WP is not a place for people to argue points and take sides and argue strengths and weaknesses and prove their case. To (3), I'm clear on the definition of "cognate", and insulting me by quoting dictionaries does not advance discussion. But which doctrines of who are "cognate" to which other doctrines? The term "apostolic churches", as you want to use it, implies that those churches which lack apostolic succession are not properly called "apostolic". That's not ok to do, since (from their perspective) they most certainly are apostolic, and, from their point of view, apostolic succession is irrelevant to true apostolicity. When you say that the section "does address diversity, contradictions, and canon" note that this is not what I referred to, but more interestingly, it is a "tu quoque" argument. And, it's not really relevant here, because the article is not about "the problems of churches which lack apostolic succession", and it is on topic to address the claims made about what apostolic succession does, and whether it actually does them. To (4), you have identified the back-and-forth character of the article. But in contrast to your view that back-and-forth is good and wonderful, Wikipedia policy is firmly against it, and here is an excellent reason why: you want to add another "and forth"to the back-and-forth, now which is about criticizing churches not in the apostolic succession, without any reference any more to the actual topic of the article. To (5), "the other section is bad too" is quite correct--I said as much--and no matter how bad it is, adding more bad material only makes the article as a whole even worse. I ask you now, again, once more, not to add the section until these points are agreed. But your behavior suggests this is unlikely to happen, so I'll have to do the work of engaging the whole problem of the back-and-forth in the article itself, since you are unwilling to wait for consensus for your changes. Tb (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am extremely frustrated that you continue to add the same section, despite objection, and again without reaching consensus. Note that the new section strives to explain the purpose of Apostolic Succession, simply repeats what is already discussed above. The back-and-forth of the article must stop and your obstructive refusal to find consensus before re-adding the section is causing difficulty. Perhaps you could think of it this way: if there are points which should be made in the main article, make them there instead of adding a new section, and don't repeat things already in the article. Tb (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)