An Anglican Case for Apostolic Succession

In this video, I argue against Dr. Gavin Ortlund's video against apostolic succession found here:
• Does Jerome Undermine ...
I also start to outline a vision for Protestant ecumenism and the goal of continuing Reformation in this video. This is an idea I've been hashing out for some time now, and I thought now was a good time to introduce the notion of a kind of ecumenical Protestant episcopate, in accordance with the apostolic tradition.
Here also is Jordan Cooper's video mentioned above: • Are Lutheran Holy Orde...

[@MissingTrails]

Apostolic Succession is the best explanation of how your pastor gets the authority to pastor. Does anyone have a better explanation? The congregationalists have two options: the authority comes from below via the congregation, or from above via mysterious, disembodied means. The former fails because it assumes that just anybody has the authority to make a pastor; the latter fails because it relies on a very piously articulated "just trust me, bro." Apostolic Succession, on the other hand, can explain it thusly: the authority comes from above. How did it get here? From Christ Himself, who made the apostles. How did it get all the way to us? By the laying on of hands (the passing on of the authority from Christ) generation after generation from the apostles down to our present-day holy orders. And regarding your thoughts in the secind half: mega based. Anglicanish provincialism could replace denominationalism via the restoration of the episcopate in other denominations. Massive concessions would have to be made regarding who gets to make what decisions, and none of this is likely to be possible while we are still battling the cancer of woke "Christianity" (imagine the intra-ACNA tensions but on a much wider scale)...but what if we could really do it some day? I think the Anglicans are in the best place to set this up, working with the Lutherans and Presbyterians, maybe even what's left of the conservative Methodists (the cage-stagers won't like this). The other major groups being for the most part explicitely non-sacramental would begin to test the limits of how far this could go.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Yes--excellent insight!

[@MissingTrails]

@@PilgrimsProgFest Hebrews 13:17, your argument is invalid.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

@@PilgrimsProgFest If someone said that a congregation ought to submit to and obey their pastors, would that person have an incorrect view of church authority, in your mind?

[@anglicanaesthetics]

@PilgrimsProgFest How can I be mandated to give obedience to someone that is not in authority over me?

[@j897xce]

You're thoughts are cool. Wish we were friends so we could talk on the phone together.

[@TheAndreas1008]

The thumbnail cracked me up ... thought it was Gavin putting out a video of his conversion to Anglicanism at first.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for engaging Sean. You mentioned surprise I didn't explain Ignatius: I mentioned Ignatius twice in my video, just summarizing what I've argued for elsewhere. I love the restorative heart reflected in your comments about the Reformation, and I agree in principle, but I see the exclusivity of apostolic succession proper (e.g., negation of valid sacraments apart from episcopal ordination) as one of those points requiring reform, as much as you would see something like papal infallibility. Just think about what it entails for, say, Muslim communities converting to Christ. We disagree on the early data (Ignatius, Shepherd, Clement, Irenaeus, etc.) but that would be too much to delve into here (I've done some videos on that stuff too). I appreciate how you defend presbyteral models as potentially legitimate with respect to apostolic succession. I'm not sure the episcopate would present a visible unity as much as you think (wouldn't we still have the same institutional/doctrinal ruptures?). Would need to hear more on that. Thanks again, always appreciate dialoguing with you.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Likewise--thanks for your thoughts here! Fair enough--I had meant substantive interaction with the epistles, but that's fair given that you've interacted elsewhere. Here's what I think it would entail for Muslim believers--episcopal evangelization. So it would like like the return of the missionary bishop who goes with priests to evangelize an area. I think that would actually help with a lot of the misfires of the discipleship making movement and the lack of ecclesiology among some Muslim Background Believers. But the notion of the missionary bishop is an ancient idea, and was the way evangelism was done for a long time--with missionary bishops, priests, deacons, and evangelists establishing a mission and reaching a people from there. That's something we've lost over time. Now, my alignment with (what I believe to be) the early church's position on succession stems from a concern for pursuing authority in a duly authorized way. So while I'd never want to say that the sacraments of those outside of presbyterial succession are surely invalid, nevertheless the certainty of them comes from standing in continuity with the visible church--like a branch from an oak. On the other hand, I'm also inclined to affirm as much as I can see the Spirit working in non-successional communities (e.g. like Baptist pastors who I think have a priestly charism and would make a good priest! 😀) One way to do this, to my mind, would be to affirm what God is doing among non successional communities in bringing people to himself, while pointing towards a fullness expressed in the episcopate (and secondarily and imperfectly in a presbyterial manner) Would it bring unity? It wouldn't fix all problems, to be sure. But I think it would give us a concrete mechanism to recognize orders across denominations while preserving a mechanism for having distinct Confessions. Certain questions would need to be settled (I think women's ordination is a massive one, for instance), but it would legitimize our efforts in the church to recover catholicity

[@j897xce]

What ought to unite believers? Theology or the sacraments?

[@thomasthellamas9886]

@@j897xceneither

[@Athabrose]

There is a misconception that the LCMS does not believe in apostolic succession. We actually do but in a more nuanced way. Also, our President and District Presidents are interchangeable with Archbishop and Bishops (same office, same duties) Our President is often called Archbishop by our foreign Lutheran Archbishops (who hold to a hard Apostolic Succession and installs our Presidents) and viewed as the same. Some of our DPs even go by Bishop. We started with bishops with the great German migration but changed the names due to certain historical events that happened after the church migrated from Germany to the US. We are Synodical which plays out as a Episcopal Congregational hybrid model which I believe is more similar to the early church as bishops were appointed by the congregation and the leadership. Anyways just wanted to clarify. I appreciate this video, while I’m not in total agreement it was very charitable and I learned a lot. Thanks brother

[@rogerparada4995]

As soon as I saw Gavin put up a video on Apostolic Succession, I hoped you would chime in and further the conversation. I’m presently in a conservative diocese in TEC, and while I am partial to the episcopate, I’m also open to hearing what the different sides have to say. Thanks for your work, Sean! 🙂

[@pipsheppard6747]

I don't mean for this to sound snarky, but is there still a conservative diocese within the TEC?!? Just asking, not arguing.

[@rogerparada4995]

⁠​⁠@@pipsheppard6747 Saw this just now. It’s relatively conservative given TEC. Hasn’t capitulated on the main social issues, and there’s a good number of conservative priest in it (from what I’ve seen).

[@paulwoodhouse3386]

​@@rogerparada4995You should join operation reconquista to take back mainline churches. You can put your church on the list of conservative episcopal churches across the country.

[@bjw8806]

Additional point of order , Methodists have followed the episcopal model of succession since their inception. They only has a presbyter ordination of a bishop when there was No valid bishop in the USA after the revolution. It about the same time the episcopal church of America also voted one of their own to be bishop, they just sought the non jurors of Scotland after the fact. Wesley cited the Alexandrian model - which Gavin cites as well- but only for this emergency case. It did not remain the practice of Methodists after that infamous Christmas Day . The only difference between the Methodists and Episcopals is that England for political reasons against the Scots later Regularizes the Episcopal USA orders while the Methodists saw no need because of their growth and work in the United States , being historically the largest denomination. So in my opinion I would say the Methodist Church tradition is not only valid with their orders but would be the representative of what a national church of the USA if it had one .

[@MrMarcvus]

Hi thank you for an interesting video. Could you please post a link to the video about presbyterial succession. Thank you.

[@BenjaminAnderson21]

Thank you for this video, Sean, I really appreciate your channel. This is a topic I've been laboring over a lot recently. I must ask: if you have the time, would you be willing to further explain your reasoning behind affirming presbyterial succession? If, as you are stating, the threefold ministry was instituted by the apostles, wouldn't this mean that Calvinist and Lutheran priests took upon themselves improper authority by ordaining new priests? Even if priests can ordain under certain circumstances, it seems that the Reformers would be wrong to presume this authority in a way that directly (and intentionally) undermines the episcopate. As I stated already, this is a topic that is very significant for me at the moment. I am looking to join an apostolic church, but am wary of the ACNA because of the whole women's ordination fiasco. On the other hand, though, I do not see how I can be certain of Lutheran orders if the episcopate really is divinely appointed over the priesthood.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Yes, I'd be happy to! I'll make a video on it.

[@danieljoshua4352]

Hey Sean!! Appreciate your content. Trent made a survey of 15 early church fathers to find if they affirm sola scriptura. His conclusion is that none of the ECF believed in it. I thought if there is a survey of that kind which explains the kind of authority the early church had. In other words, do we have the early church fathers stating the boundaries that the church authority has? Like obliterating any chance of creating novel dogmas like the assumption etc? Please lemme know if there is a source.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

There is! I've written one lol--feel free to email me at [e-mail] and I'll send it to you (it's a paper of mine currently under review, which--if it gets rejected--I might expand into something like a book)

[@danieljoshua4352]

@@anglicanaesthetics Hello Sean, thanks a lot for the response. I emailed you.

[@KevinDay]

My biggest concern with priests ordaining priests is that they should maintain a record of succession to prove the validity of any future priests, but most denominations which have done this have severely neglected to do so. Pentecostal pastors may very well have an invisible line that could theoretically be traced back to the apostles, but they don't care to show it to us to prove their validity as priests.

[@RyanAA93]

Thanks for this enlightening video as it's quite helpful as someone with a Presbytian background.

[@j897xce]

Greek went east and became Orthodox. Latin went west and became Catholic. English went north and became Anglican.

[@junkim5853]

Sean, I hope you respond to my comment. As Gavin Ortlund said in the comment section he dealt with the quotations that you brought up in regards to Iranaeus and Ignatius. The title of the video is ,A Protestant Take on Ignatius." I wonder if you read my comment when you appeared with Gavin and Pastor Schooping, I became an instant fan of you and you really helped my faith in regards to these issues. Please type the title of the video Ortlund made and make a response about it if you can. I would love to see your reply. When I first watched his video 2 years ago I couldn't understand it because his videos were highly academic but watching them again I see the validity of the points he makes and I would love to see your perspective. It's just 16 minutes please watch it if you can. God bless you Sean!

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Hey Jun! I'll respond to the video here, and I may make a video at some point about it in the future--albeit because Gavin's doing really good ecumenical work, I'm not inclined to make too many response videos to Gavin unless it touches on issues relevant to Anglicanism. So, briefly: -Re: comments on the Eucharist. I agree with Gavin, haha. To read Ignatius through the metaphysical lens of transubstantiation or consubstantiation is just anachronistic. A Neo Platonist backdrop also could explain why Ignatius calls the bread the body and blood--there's a true participation. Re: monarchical episcopate. I'd strongly disagree that you get a two office view near universally in the other fathers. Since, as I argue in the video, bishops *are* presbyters, it's not surprising that we'd see presbyters used to refer to all presbyters (including bishop) -re: interchangeability. I respond to that in the video--namely, Polycarp doesn't seem to dispute Ignatius's threefold office distinction, and it's actually telling that Clement writes and speaks for the whole Roman church. So if there were a sheer presbyterial model, why would Clement speak for the whole church of Rome? Well, Irenaues tells us--Clement was the bishop, and bishops were instituted by the apostles. Now, it's true that the terms for bishop and priest are interchangeable. But the argument for apostolic succession is that the apostles instituted the *form* of the episcopate--one ruling priest who ruled over the other presbyters--and the *use of language* by which "bishop" comes to pick out the ruling presbyter is a development. But the form is there (one ruling presbyter who rules over the other presbyters). And we see this hinted at in the NT and functioning in the apostolic fathers. Polycarp writes for the whole church over which he is the bishop, as does Clement write for Rome. Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp, tells us that the apostles instituted "bishops" (ruling priests) over every city. So we're not denying rule by a council of presbyters, but affirming that the apostles structured that council such that there was a ruling priest over the other priests--and that ruling priest came to be called "the bishop"

[@junkim5853]

@@anglicanaesthetics Thank you so much Sean for your response. I am so happy that you responded to me. I have my own objections to denying the monarchical episcopate and apostolic succession but in the context of your response to Gavin's video what do you think about the point where Gavin said that there was an imperial influence in the development of the monarchical episcopate? Do you think there was an imperial context to the evolution of the government of the early church? Also, do you think Ignatius account of the Church of Rome having no bishops counters Iranaeus's account as he believes Linus was the sole successor to Peter and affirmed the episcopate? Is it possible that if we look at Tertullian's account he believes Clement was the successor to Peter not Linus. If we take a look at both Tertullian's account and Iranaeus' do you think it's possible to suggest that leadership was shared/interchangeable between the presbyters meaning that the church did not have one single leader ruling the church? How would you respond to the argument that the different accounts you see from Tertuallian and Iranaeus in regards to Peter's successor disprove apostolic succesion? P.S I understand you are not compelled to make response videos to everything Gavin said, I just wanted to know your thoughts in regards to Gavin's view of the sources you presented because he did talk about them. Anyways I am just so grateful that you spent your time watching Gavin's video and shared your thoughts with me. I can't thank you enough. God bless you Sean!

[@CesarArturoCastaneda]

What a fascinating video. Thank you for sharing. Much love from a fellow papist.

[@mj6493]

I realize that you are in a more conservative Anglican province and when you refer to Lutherans you are probably thinking of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. But I would point out that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has bishops ordained in apostolic succession and is currently in a full communion relationship with the Episcopal Church. Scandinavian Lutherans also have bishops in apostolic succession and are similarly in communion with the Church of England via the Porvoo Communion. So no need to “re-ordain” clergy moving from one of these churches to another. These churches surely have problems that are beyond the scope of this video, but within them you will find many faithful Christians.

[@LoveIncarnate]

The issue here is that apostolic succession is not simply some sort of static tactile thing. It is a tactile succession connected to unity with the apostolic Church and the apostolic faith. The ECLA and assorted Lutheran bodies in the “Porvoo Communion” are heretical by virtue of their belief in female episcopal ordination (which breaks both the apostolic faith-only men can be bishops-and the episcopate). Therefore, even if there are “validly” ordained bishops their heresy automatically invalidates any and all sacraments and orders they confer because while they may have the “matter” they do not have the “intent” and, in some cases, they don’t even have the “form”. This discounts and cuts off all liberalizing forms within the Anglican Communion (including a large swath of the CoE and the entire Episcopal Church USA) as well as these Protestant/Lutheran “apostolicaly succesive” communities. Any and all clergy ordained by either a women (matter, form, intent or an episcopal woman’s ordination affirming or gay-affirming/liberalizing bishop (form and intent) MUST be reordained. Including the Lutheran bodies that have bishops.

[@kesroner]

Very helpful and well presented. Thank you.

[@bjw8806]

Question here Is the actual term bishop and priest being written or is it episcopate/ presbyter Makes a lot of difference when using accurate translation and etymology

[@rickydettmer2003]

It’s content like this that makes me say, Oh how I wish there were conservative Anglican communities/churches where I live lol.

[@carlossardina3161]

Me too. Growing up in a Baptist community, I can't say I've ever met a pastor that was passionate about Church history.

[@Davidwarren-h8g]

Another helpful presentation.

[@VFXShawn]

Paul passed his ministry to Timothy (2 Timothy 2:1-2), but that did not make Timothy an apostle. The 12 apostles of Christ agreed with Paul to limit their ministry to the circumcision only (Galatians 2:9), and there is no evidence in scripture they passed their apostolic gifts or office to anyone. What we do have is an explanation that the ministry of the 12 ended due to Israel's rejection of their witness, causing Israel to fall (Romans 11:11), which is why God called the Apostle to the Gentiles (Paul) until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in (Romans 11:25), then God will return His attention to Israel and save that nation as it is written (Romans 11:26). Apostolic succession is an unnecessary, and unbiblical doctrine that confuses the ministry of the 12 to Israel with the mission of the Apostle to the Gentiles, who is our Apostle for today during this dispensation of grace (Ephesians 3).

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Apostolic succession doesn't teach that there's a succession of apostles--as though there are apostles in the sense that the original apostles were. Rather, it teaches that the chain of authority flows from them--that they instituted bishops and priests (presbyters) who ordain presbyters who ordain presbyters to the present day. So sacramental ministry comes through the chain of succession from rhe apostles.

[@VFXShawn]

@@anglicanaesthetics The Greek word for "priest" is "ἱερεύς" (hiereus). The Greek word that is translated as "presbyters" or "elders" in the New Testament is "πρεσβύτερος" (presbyteros). I'm not sure how you got the idea that presbyters are priests. As for "the chain of authority", I'm not sure where you are getting that from either, or why you feel the need to have it, you mentioned "sacramental ministry", speaking of sacraments, but the scripture speaks only of the once and for all sacrifice of Christ, his blood shed and his body broken for us (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). There is nothing else needed, and nothing else offered.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

@@VFXShawn The notion of an enduring priesthood comes from two related ideas: 1.) The presbyters are embodied representatives of our high priest, the Lord Jesus. So in calling them priests, we are acknowledging them as unique icons of Christ as the Priest. 2.) In Isaiah 66:21, the Lord (curiously) promises to take "Levites from the nations" to make them priests. We'd see that fulfilled in the ministry of the church. Now on sacramental ministry, yes, Jesus's sacrifice is made once for all. But sacrifices in the Old Testament weren't just atoning sacrifices (e.g. free will offerings, for instance). There were multiple roles for sacrifice. The apostle Paul tells us to present our bodies as a living sacrifice. The Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving which mediates the once for all sacrifice of Christ; it is not a supplement to it. Rather, those who take the Eucharist, in the words of St. Paul, see the bread and wine as a "participation in the body and blood" of Jesus. That language of "participation" is extremely realist. Now what of the "chain of authority"? Think of it this way: there's no such thing as a self-ordained presbyter. The New Testament knows nothing of the sort. When Paul seeks to appoint elders, he has appointed presbyters do the job--for instance he commissions *Titus* to appoint presbyters in every town. So the authority to presbyterial ministry comes from other presbyters. If that's the case, then a self-ordained minister has no authority to ordain other ministers.

[@VFXShawn]

@@anglicanaesthetics Thank you for taking the time to respond. We know Israel in prophecy is to become a nation of priests (Exodus 19:6; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6). In context, Isaiah 66:20 says "as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord. And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord", so the priests are taken from Israel, not the Gentiles. There is nothing curious about this, this was foretold back in Exodus as God's intention for that nation. Isaiah 66 says that nation will be born again in a single day (Isaiah 66:8) and has absolutely nothing to do with you or I today, as members of the Body of Christ during Israel's fall (Romans 11:11). When Jesus returns to the earth, and Israel becomes the nation of priests, what was foretold by the prophet Zechariah will be fulfilled: Zechariah 8:23 “In those days ten people from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, ‘Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you." The Jews as priests will go into all nations, and find those who want to meet the Lord Jesus, and bring them to Israel to meet the King. All nations shall flow to Jerusalem as per Isaiah 2:3 "Many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord to the temple of the God of Jacob", where Jesus Christ himself will rule and reign over the nations. Today, God is not operating through the priesthood of the Levites or the priesthood of the nation of Israel, because Israel is fallen (Romans 11:11), instead God is operating through a mystery revealed to Paul (Ephesians 3). Paul never taught that he was a representative of the High Priest, and certainly never told Timothy that he was to think of himself that way after taking over Paul's ministry. The entire idea of a priesthood is steeped in Jewish temple significance and the prophecies concerning that nation, but have absolutely nothing to do with the age we are living in.

[@thenewhope123]

What does it take for the apostolic succession to be valid?

[@coffeehousedialogue]

Tracing your line of bishops back to the Apostles in some way. In the Anglican church's case, it can be traced by to Augustine of Canterbury, who was sent by the Roman church (little c to distinguish from Roman Catholic) that was founded in the first century under the apostles. It checks out.

[@ronfeledichuk531]

Good up to justification by faith alone.

[@أفلاكالأفكار]

As long as Anglicanism was established by a King (Henry VIII) was wanted to get a divorce, it can never be legitimate. The only reason it lasted so long was: 1) It was imposed by the State and required if you wanted to advance in society 2) It was preferable to the tyranny of the absolutely barbaric savagery of the Catholic Church in those times

[@anglicanaesthetics]

The Church of England was not "established" by Henry VIII. To think that Anglicanism can be boiled down to this is to misunderstand what exactly happened. It's not like he just "founded" a new church because no one's holy orders changed. Rather, in seeking to break away from Rome, he sent a delegation away who came back with Reformational material, which then actually convinced the clergy. But the clergy maintained their episcopal orders.

[@PatrickInCayman]

@anglicanaesthetics It was not "established" by King Henry VIII, it was established by the Catholic Church. King Henry VIII broke that bond away in 1534 because he could not get an annulment from by Pope Clement VII his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, to marry Anne Boleyn. Henry unilaterally took matters into his own hands, and effectively ceased Apostolic succession and went into Schism. Again don't mean it to be mean, the Church of England and Anglicanism has falsified itself. (Especially considering the recent same sex blessings) Return to the True Church brother.

[@j897xce]

Anglican is at least as old as St.Patrick

[@coffeehousedialogue]

Last I checked, the Church of England's holy orders were founded by Saint Augustine of Canterbury as a missionary from Rome, so Henry VIII's break from Rome for his own political ends are irrelevant.

[@jamessheffield4173]

While a bishop is an elder, he also has oversight.

[@twentyfourthrones]

True and vice versa could be said as well since elders (presbyters) are too called to "exercise oversight" over the flock of God [1 Pet. 3:1-2]

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@twentyfourthrones If you ask who has oversight, you would probably get the senior pastor. A bishop is the elder who has oversight of the church, See Ignatius of Antioch.

[@FloridaManGraham]

Solid thumbnail!

[@carlossardina3161]

Epic thumbnail

[@soteriology400]

Reading the Bible is true apostolic succession.

[@georgeluke6382]

How do you understand the issue of thinking about immature and mature polities as the earthly tendency towards formal monarchy, opposed to a biblical oligarchy of elders? Seems your position on the OT elders **would clash with the OT warnings on safeguarding narrativally and in statues against a Gentile divine right King (excepting the Messiah), suggest that in times of low maturity there are monarchs, but in a time of high maturity, the power of those monarchs in the theoretical system of Israel is extremely mitigated by many checks and balances of a wise laity, Levites, and High Priest. Enjoy your thoughts here! I know we disagree on the role of the OT polity norming the polities of all other nations, but wanted your thoughts on this take in terms of validity. It seems Presbyterian defenses use the OT to norm and justify the Presbyterianism of the early church, while Episcopal systems would point to the dominance of early church non-Jerome tradition and development as the norming “tradition” for the future church to apply NT directions on elder identification to a particular form.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Good question--crucially, the bishop is not the *king* of the dioceses. And this is one way I think the episcopate can go wrong--the bishop is more alike to the *high priest* of the dioceses, as the one who facilitates the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments (facilitating the sacrifice of the eucharist as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving which communicates the forgiveness of sins) To my mind, it actually seems like more of a fit with the general tenor of Scripture. Social structures converge towards heads, though not necessarily kings (which is why it's important to say that the bishop is not the king of his dioceses). Anglicans would argue that the ministry of presbyters of the church is actually the fulfillment of Isaiah: "And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands far away, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory. And they shall declare my glory among the nations. 20 And they shall bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to the Lord, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the Lord, just as the Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord. 21 *And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites*, says the Lord." How can God take "levites" from the nations? Well, in the new covenant, we see how: God sent the Jewish apostles from Jerusalem to proclaim his glory among the nations, and God made of those nations *priests* who lead the new covenant people--Israel reconstituted around the Messiah. And the Levites of the new covenant offer the sacrifice of the eucharist, which is the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving sacramentally drawing the participants into the divine life mediated by the body and blood of Jesus. If the priesthood, then, has in fact come from the old covenant into the new covenant and has been transformed, then it wouldn't be surprising that the symbol of the high priesthood still continues as the head of the priests in a given region/city; the bishop represents *the* high priest, just as the high priests of old were pointing ahead.

[@wayned803]

​@@anglicanaestheticswould this understanding of polity and purpose essentially make the Anglicans equivalent to "English Orthodox"?

[@anglicanaesthetics]

@wayned803 Basically, yeah! In the 1920s, the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized our orders. But talks broke down when certain Anglicans started ordaining women as priests, sadly. But yes, there's historically been affinity between Anglicanism and the Orthodox Church. The biggest sticking point (besides women's ordination to the priesthood, which i agree was a mistake) is our acceptance of certain Reformational doctrines like the supremacy of Scripture and justification by faith alone.

[@wayned803]

@@anglicanaesthetics interesting! My understanding of Anglicanism was that they considered strong/strict adherence to the Reformational distinctives Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura something of a relic of the past. That is, I thought they held to a sacramental system not unlike ours (I'm Roman Catholic), only where double predestination was "allowed", even though Molinism was the current broader norm, and I thought they had a more or less identical view of Scripture to us (eg, where the Church has binding authority to interpret and apply Scripture and Tradition). Would you say that, strictly speaking, John Q Anglican would be "justified" (in the sense of "correct" lol) in disobeying a direct command from the Archbishop of Canterbury if it turned out that disobeying was in objectively better conformity with Scripture? And would you say the Anglican Church would declare him justified (as in right with God) if they could "somehow" know he had faith, even in the absence of baptism? These are very odd questions, I know, I'm just trying to get a sense of how "Protestant" they truly are, as every Episcopalian service I've ever attended had a liturgy, sermon, and Eucharist pretty much indistinguishable from a typical English language Roman Rite (minus a few intercessions of Saints)

[@georgeluke6382]

@@anglicanaesthetics I understand the parallelism with the Levites and priests to the new covenant laity and the elders. Why wouldn’t the High Priesthood be over, but fulfilled in the Melchizedekian priesthood, with the President of the elders corresponding to OT synagogue presidents being taken up into NT assemblies? Couldn’t the bishop be a mistaken application by the church looking for an earthly high priest/bishop over elders to correspond to the heavenly high priest, despite the first century church using bishop and elder interchangeably?

[@39knights]

Unfortunately, the theological changes and intentions of all Anglican and other protestant ordinations changed enough they became invalid shortly after their split from Rome. Thus they have lost Apostolic Succession long ago and have been invalid for a long time. At first there was only the eleven Apostles. When those Apostles appointed other to their ministry at first it was as others equal to themselves and these were Elders or what later is called Bishops. Then there were those assigned to consecrate the Eucharist and they were presbyters or priests. A Bishop is a priest by nature of his office, but a priest is not atutomatically a bishop. Priests cannot consecrate other priests. This is why at first the terms were interchangeable but early out became more differentiated and the Church settled on what you see now in the Ctholic Faith. Just because you realize now that your orders are invalid; the way back is not to try and re-define things, nor somehow try to justify your departure from the Faith. Your return will only come by recognizing your error, repenting, and coming back into union with the True Apostolic Faith.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Anglican orders are and always have been valid, and Rome's argument rests on *demonstrable* falsehoods: kzbin.infoLcWiaas3Olw?si=xPhHnwQc-mu0zIpI

[@39knights]

@@anglicanaesthetics Shortly after the break from Rome your ordination rites did remain valid, as did your Apostolic Succession. But then under the influence of 'reformation theologians' and other liturgical shennanigans your guys changed the rites and the intentions. Rome investigated and eventually concluded they had changed so much they were no longer in the Successoin of the Apostles. So since that time these laymen hae been playing priests and bishops as they fell out of succession by their own choice. If you want to keep playing that game, that is up to you. But the majority of Christians remained faithful to the Chair of Peter and they ALONE and ONLY those they recognize have kept the Faith and Succession. It is very very unlikely your minority did except by your own word semantics and revisionists accounts. The teaching and liturgical authority remained with Rome. If Rome says yours is invalid; then no amount of your tinkering will change that. Jesus said that what Peter loosed and bound would be upheld (and the Chair of Peter by Succession); then that prominse only extends there and not to your so-called bishops. It really is that simple. circumcision was necessary until Peter said no; and the same with your 'bishops', they were valid until Peter said no. Anything after that is simply throwing a temper tantrum that won't change anything.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

@@39knights Have you watched the video? I refute the claims Rome makes upon which Apostolica Curae rests. Asserting your position is not an argument. It's just papal fundamentalism.

[@39knights]

@@anglicanaesthetics You are completely missing the point. Don't you think I can't repost a video rebutting your video??? The Bishops which apostasized in England because they were too comfy and liked their necks attached to their heads had made a vow upon their installation to be obedient to the Pope. For 1500 plus years the Supremecey of the Pope held for them until it was inconvenient for them (to keep living). Just as at the First Council in Jerusalem; when Peter speaks then the matter is settled. Peter has spoken on the legitimacy (or the lack of it) over Anglican Orders and they are null and void. End of discussion; there is no higher appeal court unless Jesus Himself appears to settle the matter. You can make as many videos as you want trying to 'splain it all away and trying to justify your idea of Christianity; but all it accomplishes is keeping you away from the True Faith and legitimate Apostolic Succession. If you are truly seeking Unity as Jesus prayed for; then there is always the Catholic Anglican Ordinariat.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

@39knights Go ahead and try. That would be better than reasserting a premise I obviously disagree with. Your approach is no more convincing than it would be to tell an atheist, "well the Bible says your wrong. It doesn't matter what you believe. Since the Bible says it that settles it." Do you expect to convince anyone?

[@Chris-wf6km]

Anglicans and other protestants mistakenly believe they celebrate the Lord’s Supper as God intended. No they don’t! Catholic and Orthodox only celebrate the Lord’s Supper as God intended. In John 6 Jesus Christ asked us to eat His flesh and drink His blood for compelling reasons. Later, at the Lord’s Supper, Jesus Christ showed us how to obey His request to eat and drink of Him via blessed bread and wine that has miraculously become His flesh and His blood. The 39 articles of the Church of England calls this “wicked” and “repugnant”. Please read the core relevant passages on the Lord's Supper John 6:51-56 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” John 6:60-68 excerpts 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? …64 But among you there are some who do not believe.”… 64 For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe…. 66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. 67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” Note: The disbelieving Jews clearly understood that Jesus was speaking plainly by the plainly speaking reply of “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” These disbelieving Jews refused to accept that Jesus Christ could give us His flesh and blood to eat and drink and they turned their backs on Him. Mark 14:22-24 The Institution of the Lord’s Supper 22 While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 1 Corinthians 10:15-16 - St Paul 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? 1 Corinthians 11:19 -20 & 29 - St Paul 19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. 20 When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper… 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. Catholic and Orthodox Pastors only have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders from a Bishop of Apostolic Succession. Therefore protestant Pastors do not have the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Jesus Christ so they remain bread and wine. Our one true God is most gracious and wise and one should lovingly accept His divine gift because “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jesus Christ). If you want to obey God and partake of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ then be Catholic or Orthodox. God bless you

[@Chris-wf6km]

Anglicans and other protestants mistakenly believe they celebrate the Lord’s Supper as God intended. No they don’t! Catholic and Orthodox only celebrate the Lord’s Supper as God intended. In John 6 Jesus Christ asked us to eat His flesh and drink His blood for compelling reasons. Later, at the Lord’s Supper, Jesus Christ showed us how to obey His request to eat and drink of Him via blessed bread and wine that has miraculously become His flesh and His blood. The 39 articles of the Church of England calls this “wicked” and “repugnant”. Please read the core relevant passages on the Lord's Supper John 6:51-56 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” John 6:60-68 excerpts 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? …64 But among you there are some who do not believe.”… 64 For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe…. 66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. 67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” Note: The disbelieving Jews clearly understood that Jesus was speaking plainly by the plainly speaking reply of “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” These disbelieving Jews refused to accept that Jesus Christ could give us His flesh and blood to eat and drink and they turned their backs on Him. Mark 14:22-24 The Institution of the Lord’s Supper 22 While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 1 Corinthians 10:15-16 - St Paul 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? 1 Corinthians 11:19 -20 & 29 - St Paul 19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. 20 When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper… 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. Catholic and Orthodox Pastors only have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders from a Bishop of Apostolic Succession. Therefore protestant Pastors do not have the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Jesus Christ so they remain bread and wine. Our one true God is most gracious and wise and one should lovingly accept His divine gift because “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jesus Christ). If you want to obey God and partake of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ then be Catholic or Orthodox. God bless you