Gee, so many posts by people who have so little knowledge of this absolutely crucial matter (crucial for churches with sacramental theology --seven ecumenical councils, seven sacraments, visible church / hierarchy of bishops, priests and deacons). TO clarify for all: apostolic succession has nothing to do with unity with the Bishop of Rome / Holy Father the Pope. It is defined as succession of catholic teaching passed over via authority by laying on of hands from bishop to bishop since the time of the Apostles. Read your Timothy on this. Churches that left the idea of laying on of hands from bishop to bishop did so not of theological reasons but because they simply had no bishops in the first place. Where there is bishop, there is church. For this reason, Vatican recognizes, accepts and acknowledges Eastern (non-Uniate) Orthodox, Oriental (non-Uniate) Orthodox, Old Catholics (who have no women in the line of sucession, which is not the case for every Old Catholic bishop and priest any more), and Polish National Catholic Church (received apostolic succession from Old Catholics when Old Catholics did noteven think about ordaining women). This is all nicely explained in Papal Declaration of 2006 called "Dominus Jesus". Anglicans lost apostolic succession for two reasons: they started consecrating bishops from non-priests (presbyterial pastors who were never ordained into priesthood by a bishop in apostolic succession, only elected by laity and laid hands on by laity. Laity does not have apostolic succession, hence their laying on of hands cannot confer apostolic succession), thus "no priest - no bishop". Two, because King Edward changed (ordered changes) the ordinal so drastially (protestant-way) that the words of the ordination and consecration no longer "did what the Church has always done". Unlike Orthodox, Old Catholics and Polish National Catholics. As to Uniate Eastern Churches, once they submitted fully to Pope, they had to accept Roman Catholic doctrine (all of it) but they were allowed to keep thir liturgy an practice (like married priests). As Uniates are "Orthodox-turned-Papal", and their apostolic succession was never in question (they ordained and consecrated clergy the way Roman Catholics did in the first millenium), there is no doubnt as to their apostolic succession.  --Dr. Milan Josef Kučera

Gee, so many posts by people who have so little knowledge of this absolutely crucial matter (crucial for churches with sacramental theology --seven ecumenical councils, seven sacraments, visible church / hierarchy of bishops, priests and deacons).

What is apostolic succession?

TO clarify the term: apostolic succession has nothing to do with unity with the Bishop of Rome / Holy Father the Pope. It is defined as succession of catholic teaching passed over via authority by laying on of hands from bishop to bishop since the time of the Apostles. (Read your Timothy on this). 

Churches that left the idea of laying on of hands from bishop-to-bishop did so not of theological reasons but because they simply had no bishops in the first place. Where there is bishop, there is church.

For this reason, Vatican recognizes, accepts and acknowledges:

• Eastern (non-Uniate) Orthodox

• Oriental (non-Uniate) Orthodox

• Old Catholics (who have no women in the line of succession, which is not the case for every Old Catholic bishop and priest any more

• and Polish National Catholic Church (received apostolic succession from Old Catholics when Old Catholics did not even think about ordaining women.

This is all nicely explained in Papal Declaration of 2006 called "Dominus Jesus".

Anglicans lost apostolic succession for two reasons:

• 1 They started consecrating bishops from non-priests (presbyterial pastors who were never ordained into priesthood by a bishop in apostolic succession, only elected by laity and laid hands on by laity. Laity does not have apostolic succession, hence their laying on of hands cannot confer apostolic succession)..."no priest - no bishop".
• 2 Because King Edward changed (ordered changes) the ordinal so drastially (protestant-way) that the words of the ordination and consecration no longer "did what the Church has always done". Unlike Orthodox, Old Catholics and Polish National Catholics.

Uniate Easter Churches

As to Uniate Eastern Churches, once they submitted fully to the Pope, they had to accept Roman Catholic doctrine (all of it) but they were allowed to keep their liturgy and practice (like married priests). As Uniates are "Orthodox-turned-Papal", and their apostolic succession was never in question (they ordained and consecrated clergy the way Roman Catholics did in the first millenium), there is no doubt as to their apostolic succession. 

--Dr. Milan Josef Kučera