Author Topic: Concerning Apostolic Succession  (Read 22117 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dllwatkins

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: Concerning Apostolic Succession
« Reply #45 on: March 13, 2010, 12:03:32 AM »
So is the line one of authority, or of truth and purity in teaching?

One would hope the answer is both.  The difficult thing to remember when looking at a "succession line" for a particular see is that each name on there (or, at the very least, the vast majority of the names there) were elected by a synod, not merely selected by an individual to succeed - thus, there should be a continuity of both doctrine and authority, but this is a continuity preserved by the conciliar action of the Church guided by the Spirit, through the selection, interview, and election process used by the Synod.  Apostolic succession isn't some sort of chart detailing how a dictator has passed power on through the generations, but rather is a list of the men who hopefully represent the Orthodox faith well (can't pick them all correctly, though, as history has demonstrated) both in their teaching and in the exercise of their Episcopal authority.
Thank you, Fr. George, this is kind of what I was thinking.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,328
Re: Concerning Apostolic Succession
« Reply #46 on: April 12, 2010, 11:07:20 AM »
I drafted this a year ago, but never posted.  Might as well now.
to be continued....
to be cont....

(btw, regarding the Apostolic Constitutions, I'll add this to the list of sources autenticating them as part of Traditions, c. VIII of Ephesus: "Our brother bishop Rheginus, the beloved of God, and his fellow beloved of God bishops, Zeno and Evagrius, of the Province of Cyprus, have reported to us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to the ecclesiastical constitutions and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and which touches the liberties of all")

Now, as to the lines and lists of bishops as "successors of x."  To further my analogy, let me use the 7th/18th (the number will be discussed below: it's important on this issue) congressional district of Illinois, the one that Abraham Lincoln represented in the House.

Now, Illinois, or rather Pays des Illinois, was part of New France.  It didn't have any legislature (for that matter, neither did Old France at the time), and so was not part of the representative rights of the 13 English colonies posted above. That doesn't concern us, except for what it left: a large white, French population which had set up a society with the native Amerindians, making the settlement/future capital Kaskaskia the largest town West of the Appalachians (trivia: this capital is now under the Mississippi, and at the last census had 9 persons and perhaps is now even lower).  In 1763 France ceded the land to Great Britain, but the inhabitants didn't get representation, because the Royal Proclamation of 1763 ordered the French white settlers out (and preventing English settlerscoming in) in favor of treaties with Amerindian Nations (who, as foreign nations, didn't have representation in the English system of things).  In 1774 the Whites were allowed to stay, but as part of Quebec: the Quebec Act being one of those the Americans called the "Intolerable Acts," and it continued government without representation in Illinois. 

One reason why the Act was "intolerable" was that the British Crown had, in competition at the time with the French, had extended the jurisdiction/sovereignty of its maritine colonies by the charters granted on the coast into the interior of the continent, claims that became enforceable with the defeat of France. England had chartered Virginia with boundaries going from the Atlantic North and Northwest from Jamestown, where England gave her, as the embodiment of the colonists' right to represenation, the House of Burgesses (the first representative body in the Western Hemisphere), which later reconstructed itself in 1776 in the midst of revolution as the Virginia General Assembly.  By that Assembly, Virginians sent their delegates to the Continental Congress.

George Clark (brother of Clark of "Lewis and Clark") of the Kentucky county (part of which went on to become the State of Kentucky) was commissioned by the Virginia General Assembly in 1777 in the midst of the American War of Independence to enforce Viriginia's claims in her charter against Quebec in the effort against the British crown.  Clark had gone and found out that the French and Indian Illinoisans had no representation and no love for the British king.  Clark went on to capture Kaskaskia and the Virginia Assembly incorporated it as the Illiniois County.  As such, the Franco-Amerindian society were made citizens of VA (as such, they were exempt from a lot of Acts of Congress, being VA citizens), with the right of representation as described above for the 13 colonies. In fact, Illinois was incorporated as with the same status as James City Shire, now County, the first county of Virginia, per the terms of the Virginia charter as interpretated by the Virginia Assembly. IL, included the future 7th district, and dominated at the time, including the future 7th Cong. Dist. IL, still by the Franco-Amerindian population with VA citizenship, got its first representation.  (btw, Abraham Lincoln's father Thomas was born in this VA-KY-IL megastate).

In 1781 Virginia ceded Illinois country (along with the future 7th Cong. Dist. IL) to the United States in Congress Assembled, to induce the other, smaller states, to ratify the Articles of Confederation, which transformed the Congress Assembled into the Congress of the Confederation, which became completely legal when in 1783 Great Britain granted Virginia here independence. North Carolina followed suit, and cededed its claims West of the Alleganies to the Congress of the Confederation to pay its debts: the United States in Congress Assembles failed to accept, and the inhabitants feared the land to be sold off to France or Spain, and proclaimed the State of Franklin, which was not recognized by Congress and was retaken by North Carolina.  In 1789 North Carolina ratified the present Constitution and sent its 5 representative to the U.S. Congress according to Article I Section 2.  The land that it had ceded made up the 5th Congressional District (later Tennessee).  After North Carolina's 5th representative, John Sevier (erstwhile governor pretendor to the State of Franklin) was seated, Congress accepted the cession of the terriory, but he stayed in the house, although he no longer represented a state, but what was now federal land.  The New Federal Congress organized his former district in the Southwest Ordinance by applying mutatis mutandis (i.e. allowing slavery) the Northwest Ordinance of the old United States in Congress Assembled, which (art. 12) provided for a non-voting delegate to Congress.  The Northwest Territory did not meet the requirements to choose a delegate, but the Southwest Territory already had the experience of Sevier.  However, the Congress that had written the Ordinance had, with the adoption of the present Constitution by all 13 states, ceased to exist, and there was question about the constitutionality under the new constitution of the territorial delegate.  The Congress took the 1790 census as the opportunity to rectify the situation, and John Sevier was assigned to a 5th district within North Carolina, but it had set the precedent of a non-voting representive delegate to Congress by citizens not part of a State: William B. Grove succeeded him in the 2nd Congress representing NC's 5th district, John White (a former delegate of North Carolina to the Confederation Congress) was sent once the Southwest Territory organized its territorial government.  There was some debate, as to the status of White elected by provisions of the unicarmal Confederation Congress to the Bicarmal U.S. Congress and whether he would be a represenative, a senator or both, but White took his seat, follwoing Sevier's precedent in the House. The following congress, the territory qualified to petition for statehood, the first U.S. territory to do so, and John White's tenure ended when Andrew Jackson was elected to replace him as the Congressman at large for Tennessee with the adoption of the state constitution by the territorial government and its acceptance by the U.S. Congress, at which point the U.S. Constitution, and not the Southwest Ordinance, became controlling as to representation. 

So when in 1799 the Northwest Territory finally met the requirements of setting up its own government, it had a precedent that had been set up on its own NW Ordinance, and it sent its non-voting representative delegate to Congress, William Harry Harrison (the future 9th U.S. President, the first to die in office), and Illinois (dominated at the time, including the future 7th Cong. Dist. IL, still by the Franco-Amerindian population) got its first regular representation.  Harrison served until Congress seperated from the Northwest Territory the Indiana territory (including IN, IL and its 7th district, WI, and parts of MN and MI), when the President and Senate appointed him governor of the new Territory (without asking him). The organizing Act allowed Harrison to act as executive but appoint the legislative and judicial branches, whose acts had to receive his approval.  When Harrison tried to use this power to repeal the prohibition on slavery in the NW Ordinance, Congerss gave his appointees the right to decide, and the power to select a delegate, and one of the number of appointees, Benjamin Parke, was sent. In Congress, he tried to persuade it to allow slavery: it suspended the prohibition for 10 years, but instituted direct election of the representatives in the territories, replacing Harrison's powers. Parke joined Harrison in the executive, and Jesse B. Thomas, the Speaker of the Territorial General Assembly, replaced him as delegate in the U.S. Congress.  The elected representatives of St. Claire county blocked the legalization of slavery, and petitioned to be detached as a seperate territory, which was granted by the Act Dividing the Indiana Territory at the end of the 10th Congress, which created the Illinois Territory. Organized during the 11th U.S. Congress, the census during it established that IL had met the population requirements for a delegate, Shadrach Bond (nephew of Shadrach Bond who served on George Clark's expedition to take Kaskaskia for Virginia), who was seated the next Congress.  Thomas resigned his seat and moved to IL's capital.  Six years later in 1818 Congress gave the residents of the Illinois territory (the present IL boudnaries, including the future 7th Cong. Dist. IL) "the right of admission...on an equal footing with the original states" and " form a constitution and state government" "by their representatives in convention," and Thomas presided over the Constitutional Convention to petition for statehood, and he became Senator from IL, creating the seat that Obama held, while Bond became the first state governor. Bond's successor as delegate, Nathanial Pope, had served as the territory's secretary (the 2nd in power after the governor) due to the influence of his brother John, Senator from Kentucky, before becoming delegate, while their cousin Ninian Edwards was made governor, and then Senator at admission, creating the seat that Stephen Douglas beat Abraham Lincoln for, and which Dick Durbin holds now.  Nathanial's nephew, Daniel Pope Cook (after whom Chicago's Cook county was named)  was beat out by only 14 votes to serve the remainder of Nathaniel's term (he resigned after convincing Congress to move the state's northern boundary to include what would become Chicago), but was elected after IL statehood as the state's representative at large, including the future 7th district, which continued until the 1830 census, according to the Constitution, gave IL three representatives, and the 1840 census gave 7. As the population core shifted from Kaskaskia, in the Southwest, to Chicago, in the Northeast, the districts became progressively smaller and district 1 and the following ended up in Chicago, such that the 7th district now is in Chicago-in fact, Barack Obama's home district, represented by Bobby Rush, who defeated Obama for the seat-and the seat of the territory of Abraham Lincoln's (1847-9) 7th District now lies in what is the 18th congressional district.  If IL's population, and hence representative delegation, declines, the two districts may remerge.

Both discricts had representatives whose history is germaine to the analogy being made.  In the remainder of the days of Lincoln's 7th district, his successor James C. Allen was elected to the 33rd Congress, but the 34th Congress decided he was not entitled to the seat, which was left vacant until he was reelected by the special election to fill it. He became Clerk of the House of the 35th Congress, and hence the holder of the legislative authority of the U.S. House of Representatives until the 36th Congress. In that Congress, due to redistricting, the seat became the 11th district, eventually to become by subsequent redistricting the 18th IL District, which it reached when the future Speaker Joseph Cannon represented it.  As the 18th district it has been represented by Bob Michael (who holds the dupious honor of being the longest serving minority leader in the house: if he ran instead of retired, he would have been the Speaker) and Ray Lahood (now Transportation Secretary).   

In what continued as the 7th district, edging from its Eastern regions to Lake Michigan, until it was contained within Chicago.  It has now begun, by restricting by the constriction of IL's congressional delegation, streching back West.

But that is not all: Lincoln's 7th district covered areas now redistricted into districts other than the present 7th and 18th, including the 19th district, for instance, represented by William B. McKinley (who chief claim to fame is that he was defeated for re-election to the senate seat that Obama and now Sen. Burris filles.  The senate, because of the fraud in the campaign, refused to seat McKinley's opponent Frank Smith, who resigned only after McKinley died), and the 14th district, which Cannon served as first represented but subsequent reapportionment (Cannon was the first representative to serve nearly a half century, a record unbroken until 1958) landed him in the 18th: his successor in the 14th district, Denny Haster, also succeeded him as Speaker and then as the longest serving Republican speaker.

So, who Lincoln's successor is a question: is it  Aaron Schock, at present the youngest member of congress, who replaced Lahood in represented the physical area of Lincoln's congressional seat?  Is it Bobby Rush, whose district continues the institution of the Illinois 7th Congressional District?   Did William B. McKinley succede Lincoln as representative because McKinley's district was carved out of the 18th, although McKinley neither represented the contemporary 7th district institution nor the area of the old 7th district seat?  And are they all successors of Harrison (who represented their future districts as delegate for the NW Territory when it included IL), Thomas (who represented their future districts as delegate for the Indiana territory when it included IL), Bond (who represented IL when a territory) and Cook (who represented IL at large at the first congressional elections since statehood)? Are all Clerks of the House successors of Abraham Lincoln, as he vested his representative authority in the Clerk of the House before he departed?  Does James Allen have two lines of succession from Lincoln, as he both represented Lincoln's district and during a hiatus from representation, served as Clerk of the House?  Did Congress deciding that Allen was not entitled to his seat disrupt the succession?  Did his reelection to fill that vaccancy restore it?  When there have been hiccups like this, or like Sen. wanna be Frank Smith, or the question over Burris' appointment to the same seat by a disgraced and soon impeached governor, how has this effected the succession?

What we have is an abstract principle (representative government), made concrete by procedure (election and swearing in by the Clerk of the House, who has been vested with the legislative authority of the previous House) based on mandate (Article I of the U.S. Constitution's codification of the existing power of representation) which embodies representation in the individuals so empowered to act as representatives. Since, as James Allen (and Frank Smith and Roland Burris) learned, the House has the power to validate the authority of the individual representatives, represenation does not depend on the individual representatives, as the Constitution determines and guarentees (but does not originate) the power of represenation which the people of the individual states possess. Such power was strenthened by the 14th Ammendment, which gave Congress the power to remove the disability of former Confederates to serve as representatives.  Conversely, except when the House elects the president (which has happened, and had been discussed as a possibility in 2000), the individucal representative is not bound  by the state delegation of which he is part.  Delegates are in the position where they are empowered by the representative power of the people of their territory, but have no power under the Constitution to exercise legislative power. Not a technicality: the Constitution still does not provide delegates besides the powers given to the House (a constitutional case waiting to happen since '93): the present ones originated in the 60's when territories started electing representatives, who, however, were not all credentiated and allowed in the House until 2008. Representation is held by the House of Representatives as an institutional whole, not piecemeal as the sum of the parts of the individual representatives. Then there is the issue of officiers, like the Speaker: although the district reelecting a representative gives him the edge, based on seniority, for an office, it does not correlate directly to office, as the House has the power as the institution to elect its officiers, and can indeed elect a Speaker who is not a representative.  By tradition, it has never done so, so when Tom Foley lost reelection (the first speaker to do so in over a century), he was basically out of a job, whereas the fact that Denny Hastert sat in (one of) Speaker Canon's seat didn't give him the job. And the officiers derive their authority from the House, not their power as a representative: Canon acted as autocrat (having been sent by IL to  the House for nearly continously for 28 years) of the House, Chairing the Rules Committee as well as the Speakership, and arrogating to himself committee appointments, which he did by loyalty with disregard of seniority: when a constituent wrote his representative for a copy of the House Rules, the Representative sent the photo of Cannon.  When Canon had already set the record as the longest speaker, a revolt occured when the progressive Republicans by a series of procedural motions and votes stripped Canon of his power to appoint committee positions and deposed him from the rules committee.  He saved face by then moving for a motion to remove him from the speakership-knowing that the Republicans would not risk a Democratic speaker-which he survived, but powerless, being taught that the powers of the speaker derive from the House, not that the House derive them from the Speaker.

As such, who is the successor of Lincoln adds luster (the 18th District and its representative make much of being "Lincoln's district"), it adds no substance.  Not that that means it is meaningless: the senior Senator of NH gets Daniel Wesbster's desk, and the senior senator of MS gets Jefferson Davis' in the senate.  If the House still had desks as they did in Lincoln's day (a plack on the floor of the old House Chamber marks its spot), I'm sure their would be a question whether Schock or Rush (who is also in a three way tie as dean of the IL Delegation) would get it.

So too the episcopacy is an institutional whole (like the House) which empodies Apostolic succession (like the House embodies represenative government) trasmitted by ordination (as representation is by election and swearing in by the House Authority) as mandated by Tradition in Scripture and Canon (as the Constitution codifies, but does not create, representation).  As the House has power to discipline and expel members that do not live up to their oath of office or are disqualified for whatever reason (like James Allen being disqualified and then succeeding his own vaccancy by special election), so too the episcopacy has the power to depose heretical bishops. Delegates may represent, but not constitutionally legislate, like auxiliary/chorbishops oversee but do not ordain.  Bishops may come in Holy Synods of Autocephalous Churches (like congressional delegations from the particular states) but they are are independently bishops (as are representatives), acting only as a unit when questions like recognition of an Ecumenical Council or other Pan-Orthodox issues are at stake (like representatives vote as a state only in election of the president).

So when it comes to bishop Y being the successor of bishop X, what that means only is that the episcopacy as a whole has put Y in the same spot as X to exercise the power in the same capacity as X was empowered, whether X lived up to that responsibility or not.  So, for instance, EP Bartholomew is successor to Nestorius, who was successor to St. John Chrysostom and St. Andrew, but only up to Nestorius' deposition by the episcopacy in the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, after which +Bartholomew is successor to Nestorius' Orthodox successor Maximianus, and Nestorius' episcopacy became as null as was James Allen's representation when the House held he was not entitled to his seat: Allen was restored by special election, Nestorius could have been through repentance, as he had been urged to do.
Since the canons require the bishop to preserve the integrity of his diocese (as representative do within the confines of redistricting), the succession of bishops begin to reflect on the dicoese.  Constantinople was headed by Dempophilos, Nestorius, Acacius, Sergius and Anastasios and by St. Gregory Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Antatolius, and St. Germanos. The former, however, do not nullify the see as successor of St. Andrew (anymore than the misdeeds of the IL delegation nullifies its representation) and their influence is filtered out by the world episcopacy (much like the House purges the representatives).  The latter, reflecting Orthodoxy and hence the Truth that does not pass away, are what remain (like Lincoln and Cannon are remembered as represenative of the IL delegation).  As such, the various sees have relics as reminders of that (like the Daniel Webster's desk or what would have happened to Lincoln's desk).  The Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria has two crowns, given originally when he mediated between the Emperor and the EP: the took their hats (or their crowns) off to him.  Eusebius writes of the Church at Jerusalem showing the Throne (the only cathedra he so calls) of St. James, and Constanitnople shows the seat from which St. John Chrysostom preached.  Russians give (by the hand of the Met. of Kiev) the Patriarch the staff of Patriarch St. Peter of Kiev and Moscow (who established the latter as the seat of the Patriarchate) at his enthronment.  Such things underline continuity, but do not constitute it.

The above civics lesson is complex.  Well, often enough the history of the episcopal line, autocephalies, Churches, etc. the facts are just as convoluted but none the less valid: "the episcopacy remains one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole."  Nothwithstanding that, you have the issues of the line of the three consecrators, the line of the see the new bishop is ordained to, and the lines of the sees that he is transferred (not ordained, which happens once) to and through.

Take Rome for instance: Benedict XVI can be said to be the successor of St. Peter, as he presides in the see St. Peter founded with St. Paul, whom B XVI can also be said to succeed.  But long ago that line, like Speaker Cannon, decided that the episcopacy derives its authority from him, rather than the Pope of Rome serving as the point on which the bishops focus their authority.  As such, this line at present has no authority, as it is cut off from the episcopacy.  It tries to pull what Cannon did to the Republicans, forcing a vote of confidence as Republicans, in this case trying to define Catholic as being in union with him.  But, much like the following Congress which swept Cannon and his Republicans from power in the House, the Orthodox aren't buying it, despite the origins of Rome.

Constantinople calls itself the Mother Church of Orthodoxy.  However, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia and Cyprus do not owe their origin to Constantinople.  Her motherhood comes from her role in the development of the modern Patriarchates (which includes Russia). It does not derive from her founding by St. Andrew, as Georgia, Romania and Russia also claim origins by St. Andrew.  The Church of Greece, in a way, is senior to Constantinople: several of the major sees of the CoG were founded by St. Paul and St. Andrew, who was martyred in Patras.  However, as the House has power to raise its own officiers, so too the episcopate has the power to elevate any see as seems fit, which the Fathers did at the Second and Fourth Councils. The problem has been with all the canon 28 barbarian superjurisdiction, the "protos" of Ravenna etc. show confusion over the source of Constantinople's authority, which comes from the episcopacy and not the reverse. 

Another analogy may be made between Constantinople and Virginia: a number of Patriarchates, evangelized by the former became autocephalous, and part of its core due to historical circumstances, became the Church of Greece.  Virginia is called the Mother of States, because of the number of states formed out of the territory VA gave up to the common US government, and West Virginia became a state due to historical circumstances.  Said Patriarchates are now equal to Constantinople, as the states are equal to VA.  The latter all have the fullness of representation, the former all have the fullness of apostolic succession.

VA also provides another analogy, along with the other confederate states, to the EP: Constantinople claimed to grant, then abolish, then restore the Serbian and Bulgarian Patriarchates, just like the Radiical Republican Congress claimed the right to bar, and then readmit, the representatives of the former Confederate states, a move of dubious constitutionality as "abolishment" of a patriarchate is of dubious canonicity:neither representation nor Apostolic succession (barring heresy) can be compromised. The Bulgarian, Romanian-Bulgarian of Turnovo and the Serbian patriarchates all used Rome (whose original jurisdiction they were in) as the means of organizing and obtaining an autocephalous Orthodox Church, and as such resemble more the admission of Texas (and in like manner the Californian and Hawaiian Republics) as a state with representation, bearing even more a similtude in that the Bulgarians, Romanians and Serbs were Orthodox, just as the formers of the Texas (and Californian and Hawaiian Republics) had been Americans.

Alexandria was founded by St. Mark the evangelist, but although he did so under St. Peter's direction from Rome, and although Pope St. Gregory confessed Alexandria with Antioch as Petrine Sees like Rome, the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria are spoken of as successors of St. Mark, not St. Peter.  In fact, Alexandria, youngest of the Pentarchy, and Jerusalem, the oldest, both set the precedent of deriving a see from a founding figure, rather that tracing its episcopal line as far back as possible: although, as Acts shows us, St. Peter founded the Church at Jerusalem with Christ, the Patriarch has always been referred to as the succeessor of St. James, despite the fact that Tradition tells us St. Peter (with the disciples St. John and St. James) consecrated St. James to the see. So just as  Shadroch Bond is considered the first representative of Illiniois, although William Harrison has represented it when it was part of the NW Territory, so too Alexandria and Jerusalem are distinguished by a founding figure (St. Mark and St. James) unique to themselves, as opposed to St. Peter, who founded Antioch and Rome as well, which in a sense better distinguishes the Patriarchate as their own local Church.

In Antioch, SS Peter and Paul founded the Church there before they went on to found the Church of Rome.  Due to the decline of the city from earthquakes and war, and the migration of Syrian governance from Antioch to Damascus, in 1342 Pat. Ignatius II transferred the Patriachate to Damascus.  However, the Patriarch still has his cathedra and Cathedral in Antioch, although he resides in Damascus.  Although his Patriarchate is on the Street Called Straight where St. Ananias baptized St. Paul, HB Patriarch Ignatius IV does not preside as the successor of St. Ananias, but of St. Peter.  In the analogy of the 7th District, Bobby Rush, and not  Aaron Schock, woudl be the successor of Abraham Lincoln.  An analogy may be made with Congress itself: it constituted itself in New York, moved to Philadelphia and then settled in Washington, all the while remaining the same institution.

Another example in the precedent of Alexandria and Jerusalem would be Cyprus, which defended its autocephaly against Antioch by asserting its founding by St. Barnabas, and indeed backed that up with the invention of the relics of St. Barnabas with the Gospel of Matthew in his hand to prove it.  The argument could be made from the book of Acts that this still made Cyprus subject to Antioch, according to the openign of Acts 13.  Such reasoning, however, was not in evidence when the episcopacy in Ecumenical Council assebled, and affirmed Cyprus' autocephaly (much like Congress seperated the Illinois territory from Harrison's jurisdiction).  Although St. Peter founded Antioch, and Antioch consecrated and sent St. Barnabas (and St. Paul) to found the Church at Cyprus, Cyprus has never been considered a Petine see at all. Cyprus would seem to be like West Virginia: its seperativeness was present in the original colony, as shown by those representatives in the West opposed to those in the rest of the state, as Virginia counted slaves (who didn't vote) for representation but not taxation and the West had few slave owners or slaves.  Only the opportunity of the War between the States (like the rejection of Ephesus by Antioch while being accepted by Cyprus) brought the breach into clear view, and Congress was in the position to affirm it.

The largest local Church, Russia, has a torturous history.  The Acts of St. Andrew, and Russia tradition, state that St. Andrew evangelized the area.  An Encyclical of St. Phontius of c. 867 tells that the Rus Khaganate rushed so zelously to Christ after the Bulgars' conversion that he found it prudent to send a bishop.  Both Roman and Muslim sources predating 989 state that the Rus Khaganate had embraced Christianity, the bishop of Rus ranking 61st among Orthodox Bishops by 912, and 60th by 959 (according to the lists kept by the Emperors Leo VI and Constantine VII).  But the Patriarchs of Moscow begin its history with St. Michael I, who was sent as Metropolitan from Constantinople when St. Vladimir was baptized in 988 (although it alludes to St. Andrew in his Tropar's begin:"The prophecy of the first-called apostle has been fulfilled today/Grace has illumined the hills of Kiev and the faith is increased").  In 1154 Grand Prince Izyaslav II of Kiev called the monk Clement to succeed Met. Michael of Kiev, without seeking the EP's blessing.  The EP sent St. Constantine I as Metropolitan to investigate, and he deposed Clement and those he ordained.  When this caused a schism, in 1158 the EP sent Theodore as Metropolitan, at the request of the Rus, who deposed both St. Constantine and Clement.   His successor Maximus, Metropolitan of Kiev moved to Vladimir, and then his successor St. Peter Metropolitan of Kiev and all the Rus settled the see in Moscovy in 1335, becoming the Metropolitan of Kiev and Moscow and all the Rus.  St. Jona from Galich was ordained by Met. Only with the synod that elevated the see of Moscow to a Patriarchate did Met. St. Job of Kiev, Moscow and All of the Rus (installed 1587) become Patriarch of Moscow and all the Rus(sia) in 1589. (EP Jeremias II, who presided over the synod, had volunteered himself for the position: had he been chose, Church history would have been very interesting.).  The False Dmitry deposed Pat. St. Job his last year and installed Arb. Ignatius of Ryazan (from Crete, sent by the EP Jeremias II), who, after the Rurik dynasty was restored, himself was deposed (and later submitted to the Vatican and became that rarity, a "Russian Catholic"). 

Arb. Stephen of Ryazan became locum tenens, and during that tenure he became the Met. of Moscow (but not Patriarch) and of the Holy Synod in 1721.  When he died the following year, Arb. Feofan of Pskov (thereafter Novgorod) succeeded him as President of the Most Holy Governing Synod, but Moscow remained widowed until Met. Joseph succeeded in 1742.

What of the Hiatus of Patriarchs: was St. Tikhon the successor of Pat. Adrian?  Of Arb. Stephen of Ryazan? Was Arb. Feofan of Novgorod his predecessor, or was Met. Joseph of Moscow?  The official lists did not list Arb. (pseudo-)Pat. Ignatius

When Moscow/Kiev gained her autocephaly, she stretched only as far as the Urals, but expanding Eastward:  St. Innocent was consecrated bishop to evangelize China.  When the Chinese Empire refused him entry he settled in and founded the See of Irkutsk in 1727 on the edge of Russia.  After the mission from Valaam went past Irkutsk into Alaska, the Holy Synod created the auxiliary see of Kodiak for Irkutsk, and recalled Joasaphat to Irkutsk to be ordained for the Alaskan see. The Holy Synod further, because of the remoteness and lack of bishops, fully empowered Bishop Benjamin of Irkutsk by himself to ordain Joasaphat with the fully authority of the Russian Church (the only know instance of this occuring in the Russian Church).  Bishop Joasaphat, however, perished before his return to Kodiak, no successor was ordained, and closed the See in 1811. After having served from Irkutsk to San Francisco, Irkutsk's native son (another) St. Innocent was ordained bishop of Kamachata, Kurile Islands, and the Aleutian Islands in 1840. Consecrating his cathedral in Sitka in 1848, elevated to Archbishop in 1850, his archdiocese was split in 1853 into two vicarates: he headed  that of Yakutsk (Siberia), odaining an auxiliary Bishop Paul, while in the cathedral of Irkutsk Peter was ordained as auxiliary for that of Novarkhangelsk/Sitka (Alaska).  St. Innocent was made a member of the Ruling Holy Synod in 1865, and then translated in 1867 to Metropolitan of Moscow, leading to the question: Is St. Innocent of Alaska/Moscow an American or Russian saint? His popular "Way into the Kingdom of Heaven,"  for example, was originally written in Aleut.  Bishop Peter succeeded him in Yakutsk, and Bshp Paul was translated to Sitka while Alaska was being transferred from Russian to American sovereignty.  Bishop Paul institutionalized the Russian presence in San Francisco into a parish, and, when his successor John was ordained Bishop (i.e. not auxilairy) of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska in 1870, Bshp Paul returned to Russia via New York, where he founded the first Orthodox parish there. (Bishp Paul went on in Russia to almost where he started, assuming the see of Kamachata, Kurile Islands and Blagoveshchensk, i.e. minus the Aleutians). When the U.S. did not keep the guarantees concerning the Russians who stayed, the Russians returned to Russia or joined others in San Francisco, and in 1872  Bshp John of the Aleutians and Alaska moved the see from Sitka to San Francisco, i.e. outside of its present boundaries but inside its former boundaries.  St. Tikhon became its bishop in 1898, and in 1900 its jurisdiction was expanded to "of North America," and translated in 1904 to New York. 

Met. Jonah could claim equality with the EP as the successor of St. Andrew.  But he doesn't, nor should he, although the facts could support the argument:he received his orders through the metropolia, through the PoM, which directly or indirectly, through Constantinople or Scythia, would be an ordaining arm's length from St. Andrew.

My bishop is Mark of Toledo.  Now, he was ordained by St. Peter's successor, Pat. Ignatios, down the Street called Straight from the House of Ananias, first bishop of Damascus (the shrine belongs to the Melkites, I don't know if the Patriarch of Antioch took it with him when he submitted to the Vatican).  But Bishop Mark is not the successor of St. Peter or of St.  Ananias, and Toledo is not a Petrine see.  Nor does he succeed Met. Philip, although Toledo had the Met. as its only bishop before.  He could be the successor of St. Raphael Hawaweeny, the first Orthodox bishop consecrated in the New World, as those loyal to the saint's loyalty to Moscow organized their headquarters at Toledo, although his direct predecessor Met. Shaheen was consecrated to lead the "Toledo Group" in Damascus too.  I'm sure he doesn't want to claim to succeed Aftimious Ofiesh, St. Raphael's immediate successor, who proclaimed an autocephalous Church and was deposed.

So, just like the right of representation in American constitutional history and the episcopacy in the Orthodox Church, the heritage of the various sees is one, but it is apportioned by the Church according to her needs.

Some random thoughts:

The power of the episcopacy is more like the power of representation in the Confederation Congress than in the present Federal One in that in the former, like the episcopacy, there is no seperation of powers, and that the sovereignty of the state delegations (which varied in number according to how many a state wanted to send, but had only one vote as a unit in the Congress) resembles that of the autocephaly of the local Churches, e.g. in the Federal Congress the majority rule, in the Confederation and Ecumenicl Council consensus is what rules.

The creation of the executive branch with the adoption of the present constiution was as much a change as what Rome did with the pope of Rome, except that Congress has not become the rubber stamp that the college of cardinals etc. are.  A system where the British PM, and not the British Monarch, would serve as Head of the Commonwealth would resemble what many want to make the EP into.  Indeed, the history of the Canadian Constituion and the King-Byng-Thing dovetails with that theory perfectly.

To return to the OP:
1. When, and with whom, did Apostolic successsion start? & Is there a biblical record of it?

Representation began with the English Crown authorizing subjects to colonize the New World: Apostolic Succession began with Christ sending the Apostles out to evangelize the world.  There is a biblical record of it, but just as the colonial charters came after the colonists founded their colonies (e.g. the Mayflower Compact) and codified what they were already doing, so too the record of Apostolic Succession in the Bible is self reflective, not formative.

2. Are their successors to all the Apostles? If not, why not?

Under the Constitution, New Hampshire had 3 representatives and in the first Congress NH sent three delegates from the Continental Congress and Confederate Congresss, one a Founding Father. The following censuses raised this for a half century until it reached 6, from which it has declined now to 2, due to the fluctuations of population and the census.  As such, one of the orginal three representatives does not have a successor because his seat has been merged by history into another, after having been expanded to 4 in the intervening census for a century.  Yet the representation of NH has remained the same, in that it has a delegation according to the terms it representatives agree to.  So too various lines from the Apostles have merged (e.g. SS. Peter and Paul at Antioch and Rome).

It does not mater: just as the House of Representatives of the 1st Congress of 65 seats with only 59 valid seats was not changed because NC and RI (which had not ratified the Constitution by the time Congress had opened) were not initially represented and one member died and was replaced and another resigned and his seat left vacant to the next Congress, and today's House of the 111th Congress remains the same instition with 435 seats and 439 members (from resignations and replacements during the Congress)  and 5 vacancies today (plus 5 delegats and 1 commissioner) in the Congress. So too the episcopate has remained the same since the 12 Apostles to this day, no matter the number of bishops who bear it.

Btw 2 founding Fathers, William Blount and Jonathan Dayton, were involved in treasonous activities.  So Judas has his parrallels  too.
3. When did succession from Apostle to Apostle (ordaining new Apostles) cease, and Apostle to Bishop (oradaining Bishops only, no more Apostles) begin?

Basically as the Apostles gave way to the bishops: the only real difference it seems between the two is that the Apostles had a person to person encounter with Christ in his earthly ministry.  Hence the restriction of St Peter in the election of St. Matthias.  As St. Paul says, he was untimely born, and was consecrated the Church in Antioch before he set up Churches, which brings up another difference: bishops are based in a see, by geography.  The Apostles seem not to have any such restriction, but were sent to the ends of the universe. It is like the narrow and strict definition of Founding Father: once the Declartion of Independence and the Constitution were signed, there was no way to add to that number.  The Founding Fathers, however, in signing those documents provided thereby for the pepetuation of representation that the FF represented themselves. Otherwise, it would be a very small group: only 8 signed both the Declaration and the Constition, and only two signed both and the Articles. Just as only the generation of the Revolution could take the part of Founding Fathers, so too only the generation of Christ's earthly ministry could serve as Apostles.  There were different groups of Founding Fathers (signers of the Decleration/framers of the Constition (not all who were signers, including Elbridge Gerry who refused to sign, although he signed the Declaration and the Articles.  He went on anyways to election as the first representative of MA's 3rd district, and instituting the malpractice of the constitution's clauses on redistricting by "gerrrymandering," which bears his name. The others who refused also took positions under the new government)), and overlap: Roger Sherman, one of the only two to sign all the Founding Documents (and the Articles of Association), on the one hand linked all the documents, on the other hand he did so with Founding Fathers who served in the Continental and Confederate Congresses-Sherman didn't serve in a Congress until the new Constiution went into effect.  In combination, both sets of Founding Fathers created and put into place Sherman's "Great Compromise" which set up the rules of representation that lasted intact until the 17th Amendment in 1913.  So too among the 12, St. Matthais and others who knew the Lord from His baptism to His Ascension, the 70, and St. Paul, were different, but overlapped . So although St. Paul says he did not confer with flesh and blood and was in one group, he did have flesh and blood of hands placed on him by another group, i.e. whose authority derived from the group of 12, before he founded Churches, completing what was lacking to fulfill the office of Apostle.

4. How do you explain, and is their some significance to, the overlap between Bishops and Apostles both being present in the NT church itself?

The term Founding Father is narrowly applied to those who signed the Declaration of Independence or the framers of the present Constitution.  For some reason (prejudice and embarrassment) it does not include those who signed the Articles of Confederation. Those who did sign the Articles are included in the broader definition of Founding Father, as our those who served in the Continental Congress,  and others (like Lafayette and Von Steuben) who fought in the War of American Independance/Revolutionary War, etc.  But how broad a definition can there be?  Andrew Jackson was the last American President born a subject of the British Crown and not a U.S. citizen, and was a prisoner of war to the British during the war (catching the small pox that killed his brother and a scar on his forehead from a red coat's sword for insubordination), but he had no determinative part in the formation of the Founding of the Country. Is he a Founding Father?  So too, there is an overlapp between bishops and Apostles as there is overlap over the Founding Fathers in the narrow and the broad sense.  So as in the NT Church, Founding Fathers in the strict and narrow sense served as representatives in Congress along with those not Founding Fathers in the strict and narrow sense (yet still Founding Fathers and Sons of the American Revolution), and did so until the last Founding Father in the strict sense, James Madison, died, approprietly enough during the presidency of Andrew Jackson: Madison's first born-US-citizen successor in the 5th Congressional District of VA, John Floyd, served  1817-1829, and was sworn in on Madison's last day as US President (the last Founding Father in the strict sense to serve as president). The Founding Fathers set up the representative government, and were replaced naturally over time as others were brought in to take their same place.  So too the bishops replacing the Apostles.

When the Founding Father generation was dying out, the generation of those born in the Republic looked back as on them as a class which was coming to a close.  Daniel Webster, a leader of the new generation stated ""We can win no laurels in a war for independence.  Earlier and worthier hands have gathered them all. Nor are there places for us ... [as] the founders of states. Our fathers have filled them. But there remains to us a great duty of defence and preservation."  The same can be said of the bishops.

5. How does one prove or validate their Apostolic lineage?

Just as each Congress had validated each representative to take his seat (or not, as James C. Allen and Frank Smith, show), such that the validity of the House of Representatives is upheld as an institution, so too the episcopate (throught the approval of the primate of the syonod, the consecration by the three nearest bishops, the letters of enthronement sent to the other primates (which was the real cause of schism with Rome, when the new pope inserted the filioque in his letter, the EP struck the pope from the diptychs), the oath of the candidate to the see to obey the teaching of the Church (Scripture, Creed, Ecumenical Councils, canons, etc.) disciplining of bishops etc. has upheld its authority through the generations through the laying on of hands, and has validated the succession to a see since its creation: it's an ongoing proof.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Rufus

  • guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,337
  • Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.
Re: Concerning Apostolic Succession
« Reply #47 on: April 15, 2010, 12:48:30 PM »
Apstolic succession in itself is not protection from doctrinal error, e.g. the Pope. But even the Pope is a lot better than the Protestant method: willy-nilly-everyone-do-their-own-thing.

What does constitute protection from doctrinal error is a ecumenical council, which, according to the book of Acts, is guided by the Holy Spirit. Episcopacy is the only Biblical form of local Church government, and Church Councils are the only Biblical way to definitively settle doctrinal questions. This does not necessarily mean that bishops and councils are magically always right, but it is the only Biblical way to go about things. I believe that going off and starting new denomination is expressly condemned by Paul any number of times. Anyone care to disagree?

Also, probably the easiest way to look up lines of Apostolic Succession is on ......Wikipedia ;) You can look up the list of successors for each major see and read articles about each bishop.

Offline GreekChef

  • Prez
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 884
Re: Concerning Apostolic Succession
« Reply #48 on: April 15, 2010, 01:01:24 PM »
Apstolic succession in itself is not protection from doctrinal error, e.g. the Pope. But even the Pope is a lot better than the Protestant method: willy-nilly-everyone-do-their-own-thing.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here.  This is what bothers me about the Protestant method.  In the hierarchical churches, such as Orthodoxy, Catholocism, when one errs doctrinally there is a person or group of persons there to correct you and put you back on the right track (or, if absolutely necessary, excommunicate you).  If you wish to remain in communion with the Church, you are bound doctrinally to hold like beliefs with the Church (and this is "enforced," for lack of a better word, by the clergy/hierarchy).  There is accountability.

Within Protestantism, there is no such accountability.  One is only accountable to one's own conscience and one's own reading of the Scriptures.  There may be a preacher somewhere who will tell you that you are wrong in your interpretation or beliefs, but by no means do you have to take their word for it or amend your views/interpretations/beliefs/ways in order to remain "within" the church.  And if you disagree with that person or group of persons, you are free to start your own church and still remain "Christian."  You make and follow your own path.  Not a very safe route, in my book.

Before anyone jumps at me, I know that I am painting with a broad brush, and I am doing it intentionally to make a point.  I hope the point is not lost in my generalities.
Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5