Replies

How can you divide apostolic succession? Each bishop has his own lineage.

Then went Luther split from the Church, as a fully ordained priest, didn't he carry the "apostolic succession"?

It's not about leading the flock 'legally' — the east-west split is over theology. As long as we don't agree on some issues we cannot be in communion. That's the only thing thats separates us. There is no other separation.

What a hoo! That to me sounds like a big DUH! You can say the Protestants split over theology as well. If the keys are handed to Peter and the Vatican traces its succesion of Popes to Peter, then it seems to me the Orthodox are not following the line of Peter, now are they? Where is the apostolic succession in all of this?

Apostolic succession is really nothing more than a myth.

Then went Luther split from the Church, as a fully ordained priest, didn't he carry the "apostolic succession"?

No, of course not. Priests do not carry apostolic succession; bishops do. Priests have no authority without a bishop. Since no bishop joined Luther, and since Luther was excommunicated (and his bishop consented to it), Luther and his "church" (and all the offshoots of that movement) has no apostolic authority. In contrast neither did the Latin nor Greek Church lose that authority.

Our theological disagreement is within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the one that was founded by Christ in 33 AD and passed on to his Apostles and their successors. It's not some home-grown variety of 33,000 subspecies all claiming to be the 'true church' of Christ..

I don't think you have a clue what apostolic succession is and you call it a myth. Amazing.

If the keys are handed to Peter and the Vatican traces its succession of Popes to Peter, then it seems to me the Orthodox are not following the line of Peter, now are they? Where is the apostolic succession in all of this?

Which proves my point. The Church was not "ruled" by the Bishop of Rome. You got that all wrong. The Church operated and (the Orthodox Church still operates the same way it did for the past 2,000 years: by councils (apostolic gatherings); it's conciliar. It's the collective wisdom of the Church that carries the day.

While the Church was undivided, the Bishop of Rome gets to bless and his legates usually psuched for those agenda the successor of Peter wnated, but didn't always get. He is a senior bishop, the way Peter was the senior Apostle, but Peter did not have legal authority over other Apostles.

Now, after the East and the West stopped communing, the Latin side went on a limb and re-invented papacy in terms of primacy being equal to supremacy. Our issue with the Pope is not whether he is a legitimate Bishop of Rome or the successor of +Peter, but over the nature and the extent of his primacy (seniority) in the Church. And, contrary to your shooting with your eyes close, the Orthodox recognize the Bishop of Rome as the first among equals in honor and privileges.

[when] Luther split from the Church, as a fully ordained priest, didn't he carry the "apostolic succession"?

A better example would be the apostolic succession of the Anglican Church, which was valid for a while. It got terminated with the change in the consecration formula which finalle broke the succession. It was determined as broken by Pope Leo XIII in late 19c.

I simply don't know about Lutheran Church as a whole. I heard an expression "Continuing Lutherans"; it is possible that they retained the apostolic succession as a sub-Church even to this day. Maybe Jo Kus knows more.

Luther personally was never a bishop. The apostolic succession continues through bishops, not priests. It is true that loss of communion with Rome alone would not break the succession but rather split it. It does, however, require communion in the essentials of the faith, and since that is lacking with the most Lutherans, their succession as a whole is not longer valid.

Finally, priesthood is an indelible mark that cannot be removed. Luther (or any other defrocked priest) retains an ability to forgive sins and consecrate the Eucharist, but the flock is asked not to partake of it. It is a valid Eucharist but not licit.

I will welcome any correction to this; it is a highly technical matter and I am not a canon lawyer.