Hello, and thank you, again, for all that you do. I read with interest your recent post about your decision to re-animate a path for ordination in the UGC. At some point during the past year or so, I asked you a question about the UGC, and you recommended The Many Paths of the Independent Sacramental Movement, which I read with great interest. (I've begun to explore some new spiritual paths after a bad experience at my former Quaker meeting.)
As I read Plummer's book, (and some of the back in forth in the comments following your post) the phrase "valid apostolic succession." frequently appears. I have to wonder why this is considered important. Is it not analogous to bragging about having at least one branch in one's family tree trace back to ancient royalty? Quakers traditionally don't care about apostolic succession or even ordination, so this egalitarian background no doubt contributes to my confusion.
And I hope this question does not come across as disrespectful of the tradition. It's just that as the length of the chain (and the number of possible paths) tracing back to the original apostles continue to grow, it seems that by simple geometric progression, the number of possible paths to "valid apostolic succession" would increase tremendously and thus become less significant. Why does the idea still hold such importance, especially in a church that stresses independent, personal gnosis, not obedience to a set of rules allegedly tracing back to the year 32 AD? If I understand correctly, gnosis is not something handed down like a spiritual baton, which is how I'm stuck in thinking about apostolic succession. Thank you JMG.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2023-07-03 10:50 am (UTC)As I read Plummer's book, (and some of the back in forth in the comments following your post) the phrase "valid apostolic succession." frequently appears. I have to wonder why this is considered important. Is it not analogous to bragging about having at least one branch in one's family tree trace back to ancient royalty? Quakers traditionally don't care about apostolic succession or even ordination, so this egalitarian background no doubt contributes to my confusion.
And I hope this question does not come across as disrespectful of the tradition. It's just that as the length of the chain (and the number of possible paths) tracing back to the original apostles continue to grow, it seems that by simple geometric progression, the number of possible paths to "valid apostolic succession" would increase tremendously and thus become less significant. Why does the idea still hold such importance, especially in a church that stresses independent, personal gnosis, not obedience to a set of rules allegedly tracing back to the year 32 AD? If I understand correctly, gnosis is not something handed down like a spiritual baton, which is how I'm stuck in thinking about apostolic succession. Thank you JMG.