Post by Pacelli on Jul 19, 2017 11:01:20 GMT -5
(From Orestes Bronson, Collected and Arranged, Henry Brownson, Volume VII, 1884, Pgs. 449-450)
Mr. Derby proceeds on the false assumption, that bishops, if validly consecrated, can transmit the apostolic succession, thus resolving the apostolic succession into simple episcopal succession. There is no doubt that the episcopal succession, although it has not been in the so-called church of England may be kept in heresy and schism. Heretical or schismatical bishops may be validly consecrated, and may confer valid orders, and if orders were what is meant by apostolic succession, that succession might be claimed by heretics and schismatics. Indeed, no one validly ordained could be regarded as a schismatic or a heretic, - certainly not as a schismatic. But the succession essential to the Church is not simply the episcopal succession, but the apostolic succession, and this is not simply a succession of orders, but also a succession of authority. Orders carry with them a character, and an indelible character, but they do not carry with them jurisdiction, or the authority to exercise episcopal functions. The Church of Christ is apostolic, not simply episcopal, and bishops are successors of the apostles only in the respect that the apostles were bishops, and can transmit only the episcopal, not the apostolic succession. Take the case of the British bishops, as Mr. Derby presents it; they could have transmitted only the episcopal succession; for that was all they had; but the episcopal succession is simply a succession of orders, not of authority or jurisdiction. This would have given to the establishment no apostolic character, and no participation in the apostolate which our Lord established. The apostolate is above the episcopate, and is under God the source of all authority in the Church. Our Lord placed, as St. Paul tells us, apostles first, that is, made the apostolic authority the supreme authority in his church. Bishops, by the simple fact that they are bishops, do not participate in this authority, for if they did no bishop could be deprived,even for schism or heresy, since the episcopal as the sacerdotal character is indelible. The episcopal character of itself carries with it no jurisdiction, no authority whatsoever, and the bishop can licitly perform no episcopal function till authorized or assigned his jurisdiction by the apostolic authority. The Greek schismatic bishops have orders, and are real bishops, but they have no rightful jurisdiction, have no authority to govern the faithful, and no voice in defining the Faith simply because they have not the apostolic succession, or have interrupted it, by breaking away from the apostolic see. The church must be apostolic as well as episcopal, as even the Anglicans virtually concede in asserting, though falsely, for themselves the apostolic succession.
Mr. Derby proceeds on the false assumption, that bishops, if validly consecrated, can transmit the apostolic succession, thus resolving the apostolic succession into simple episcopal succession. There is no doubt that the episcopal succession, although it has not been in the so-called church of England may be kept in heresy and schism. Heretical or schismatical bishops may be validly consecrated, and may confer valid orders, and if orders were what is meant by apostolic succession, that succession might be claimed by heretics and schismatics. Indeed, no one validly ordained could be regarded as a schismatic or a heretic, - certainly not as a schismatic. But the succession essential to the Church is not simply the episcopal succession, but the apostolic succession, and this is not simply a succession of orders, but also a succession of authority. Orders carry with them a character, and an indelible character, but they do not carry with them jurisdiction, or the authority to exercise episcopal functions. The Church of Christ is apostolic, not simply episcopal, and bishops are successors of the apostles only in the respect that the apostles were bishops, and can transmit only the episcopal, not the apostolic succession. Take the case of the British bishops, as Mr. Derby presents it; they could have transmitted only the episcopal succession; for that was all they had; but the episcopal succession is simply a succession of orders, not of authority or jurisdiction. This would have given to the establishment no apostolic character, and no participation in the apostolate which our Lord established. The apostolate is above the episcopate, and is under God the source of all authority in the Church. Our Lord placed, as St. Paul tells us, apostles first, that is, made the apostolic authority the supreme authority in his church. Bishops, by the simple fact that they are bishops, do not participate in this authority, for if they did no bishop could be deprived,even for schism or heresy, since the episcopal as the sacerdotal character is indelible. The episcopal character of itself carries with it no jurisdiction, no authority whatsoever, and the bishop can licitly perform no episcopal function till authorized or assigned his jurisdiction by the apostolic authority. The Greek schismatic bishops have orders, and are real bishops, but they have no rightful jurisdiction, have no authority to govern the faithful, and no voice in defining the Faith simply because they have not the apostolic succession, or have interrupted it, by breaking away from the apostolic see. The church must be apostolic as well as episcopal, as even the Anglicans virtually concede in asserting, though falsely, for themselves the apostolic succession.