Does LSM Hold to Apostolic Succession?

[Cassidy]

"What is the difference between believing in apostolic succession and considering someone the continuation of the Minister of the Age? I would say that essentially there is no difference."

Working definition for this dialogue:"For the adherents of this understanding of apostolic succession grace is transmitted during episcopal consecrations (the ordination of bishops) by the laying on of hands of bishops previously consecrated within the apostolic succession. This lineage of ordination is traceable, according to "apostolic" churches, to the original Twelve Apostles, thus making the Church the continuation of the early Apostolic Christian community. It is "one of four elements which define the true Church of Jesus Christ"[20] and legitimizes the ministry of its clergy, as only a bishop within the succession can perform legitimate or "valid" ordinations. Furthermore, only bishops and presbyters (priests) ordained by bishops in the apostolic succession can validly celebrate or "confect" several of the other sacraments, including the Eucharist, reconciliation of penitents, confirmation and anointing of the sick.
This position was stated by John Henry Newman in the following words:

We [priests of the Church of England] have been born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. The Lord Jesus Christ gave His Spirit to His Apostles; they in turn laid their hands on those who should succeed them; and these again on others; and so the sacred gift has been handed down to our present bishops, who have appointed us as their assistants, and in some sense representatives. .... we must necessarily consider none to be 'really ordained who have not thus been ordained.[21]

Basis

Those who hold for the importance of episcopal apostolic succession appeal to the New Testament, which, they say, implies a personal apostolic succession (from Paul to Timothy and Titus, for example). They appeal as well to other documents of the early Church, especially the Epistle of St. Clement (see above).[22] In this context, Clement explicitly states that the apostles appointed bishops as successors and directed that these bishops should in turn appoint their own successors; given this, such leaders of the Church were not to be removed without cause and not in this way. Further, proponents of the necessity of the personal apostolic succession of bishops within the Church point to the universal practice of the undivided early Church (up to AD 431), before being divided into the Church of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.
The teaching of the Second Vatican Council on apostolic succession[23] has been summed up as follows:
Bishops have succeeded the apostles, not only because they come after them, but also because they have inherited apostolic power. ... "To fulfil this apostolic mission, Christ ... promised the Holy Spirit to the apostles...". [These were] "enriched by Christ the Lord with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit ... This spiritual gift has been transmitted down to us by episcopal consecration".[24] Most Protestants deny the need for this type of continuity[1][25] and the historical claims involved have been severely questioned; Eric Jay comments that the account given of the emergence of the episcopate in chapter III of Lumen Gentium "is very sketchy, and many ambiguities in the early history of the Christian ministry are passed over" [26] Their reasons are given in detail below."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession