Apostasy vs. Apostolic Succession

[RebeccaJ]

For more protestant view on apostolic succession…here:
reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/10/evangelicals-lets-rethink-apostolic-succession/

Thanks for the link, it was interesting. I believe apostolic succession in the sense of orthodoxy is important. An important part of that orthodoxy are the Sacraments. Where are the Sacraments in Evangelical apostolic belief? (I really don’t know.)

 

[mercygate]

Oh, it was definitely mortal. But this is off topic.

Warning: off topic. A lot of priests 20-30 years ago (and many are still around) swerved completely off the track on this. That said, the three requirements for mortal sin are pretty hard to put together at one time.

 

[mesl4]

Thanks for the link, it was interesting. I believe apostolic succession in the sense of orthodoxy is important. An important part of that orthodoxy are the Sacraments. Where are the Sacraments in Evangelical apostolic belief? (I really don’t know.)

Again, I can only speak for my experience since there is a HUGE range of beliefs in the “Protestant/Evangelical/Non-Denominational Christian” world since we don’t have any other authoritative teacher besides the Bible, which can be interpreted differently.

We don’t generally use the word “sacrament.”(1) We believe in being baptized as an outward sign of our faith. We do it out of obedience to Christ but do not (at least in my Mennonite/Baptist/Non-Denom background) believe it saves you directly. It is the expression of what saves us (our faith).

I don’t even know if these things we do/believe in are considered “sacraments” but:
(2) we partake in communion/Lord’s Supper also as an outward proclamation of our faith in the work of Christ’s body and blood, his death for our sins.
(3) marriage
(4)confession (to God required, to others it’s beneficial but optional, repentance,
(5) annointing of sick/annointing w/oil for healing - this is don’t occasionally. In the 10 yrs I went to a Baptist church, we had 1 service where pastors stood up in front and people were invited to come up for prayer and annointing while we sang and prayed also. It was very cool and moving.
(6)prayer ? I don’t really know what exactly would be a sacrament since we don’t use that word.

Since we only use the BIble as our teaching authority, if the apostles didn’t do it or teach it, it’s not that we’d say it’s wrong, but just that it is not essential to salvation. So, the way Catholics do things today, are not all taught by the apostles/Jesus so they would maybe be permitted by God, but not something we must do for salvation/closeness w/God, etc.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Since we only use the BIble as our teaching authority, if the apostles didn’t do it or teach it, it’s not that we’d say it’s wrong, but just that it is not essential to salvation. So, the way Catholics do things today, are not all taught by the apostles/Jesus so they would maybe be permitted by God, but not something we must do for salvation/closeness w/God, etc.

Thanks for the explanation. I have no experience at all with Protestantism.

One thing though, the article you linked the person sited the ECFs as following and maintaining apostolic teachings. This is why I brought up the Sacraments, because you can’t follow and maintain the apostolic teachings as you find in the writings of the ECFs unless you recognize the teachings regarding the Sacraments. Yet, you say apostolic teachings are only found in the Bible. Just curious, how do you reconcile these two?

 

[mesl4]

Thanks for the explanation. I have no experience at all with Protestantism.

One thing though, the article you linked the person sited the ECFs as following and maintaining apostolic teachings. This is why I brought up the Sacraments, because you can’t follow and maintain the apostolic teachings as you find in the writings of the ECFs unless you recognize the teachings regarding the Sacraments. Yet, you say apostolic teachings are only found in the Bible. Just curious, how do you reconcile these two?

From what I’ve read in ECFs, the earlier you go, the more ambiguos the “sacraments” are defined. Or they are less technical and it was over time that the bishops started adding new things or making very strict definitions of things where it seemed more legalistic than spiritually significant. Also it really doesn’t matter that much what the ECFs said because we don’t believe their writings to be inspired like those of the apostles were. They can be wise and sometimes inspired since the Holy Spirit moves in everyone individually, but that doesn’t mean we must believe everything they say with no room for error on their part. I think the apostles would be horrified at some of the things the “Church” declares today or over the centuries.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think the apostles would be horrified at some of the things the “Church” declares today or over the centuries.

Which things?

 

[mercygate]

From what I’ve read in ECFs, the earlier you go, the more ambiguos the “sacraments” are defined. Or they are less technical and it was over time that the bishops started adding new things or making very strict definitions of things where it seemed more legalistic than spiritually significant. Also it really doesn’t matter that much what the ECFs said because we don’t believe their writings to be inspired like those of the apostles were. They can be wise and sometimes inspired since the Holy Spirit moves in everyone individually, but that doesn’t mean we must believe everything they say with no room for error on their part. I think the apostles would be horrified at some of the things the “Church” declares today or over the centuries.

I think that once you learn the history of how various practices became “legalistic,” you will find that the “legalisms” are aimed at protecting both the Sacraments and the faithful from distortions and abuses.

The Fathers are consulted for their authority but it is the living Magisterium that holds the keys to promulgating doctrine. So we *don’t *believe “everything” the Fathers say as if they cannot err. What you come to by reading the ECFs, however, is a consensus on how the Church thought and taught in that time.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Again, I can only speak for my experience since there is a HUGE range of beliefs in the “Protestant/Evangelical/Non-Denominational Christian” world since we don’t have any other authoritative teacher besides the Bible, which can be interpreted differently.

Thank you for providing an actual Protestant’s perspective in this thread.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Protestants accuse Catholics of being in apostasy, Catholics accuse Protestants of being in heresy. Catholics claim apostolic succession, Protestants claim Catholics are closet Romans.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Succession

It seems, though, that while it is trivial to show that Catholicism incorporated some Roman traditions, usually by baptizing them (e.g. laying saint feasts on top of pagan holidays or converting temples into churches) that the essential features of Catholicism date into the early church. Protestants sometimes point to Constantine as the culprit but these essential Catholic traditions predate him.

On the other hand, there does seem to be a mini-dark age between the end of the Acts and the early church writings between which most of Catholicism came into general practice. This blank spot roughly corresponds to the two Jewish wars with Rome.

(And, interestingly, Messianic Jews accuse both Catholics and Protestants of being in apostasy because they discard the Torah law which Paul and the other apostles kept.)

Catholics have a strong point that the Bible is part of, and a product of. Catholic tradition. But Protestants have a point that if Christianity were corrupted somtime after the time of the apostles then the written Bible would be a reliable touchstone to which to return.

So are there Protestants here who can defend the accusation of the Great Apostasy and explain where Catholicism went wrong?

It was when they picked up the Bible and came up with all kind of personal enterpretation.

HOW BLESSED ARE WE TO BE CATHOLIC.

 

[a_sinner]

I can’t believe there are no responses! I’m a wavering Protestant…up and down heading towards Catholicism. This question if for me what it all boils down to. What happened between the apostles and Clement or Ignatius? I can’t seem to find that missing link which makes me hesitant. Maybe there was some rapture or some crazy end of the world thing that happened at the time of the last apostles’ death…the "last martyr " of Revelation and that was when Satan was released to deceive the nations. This is my fear of why there doesn’t seem to be any link in that “mini dark age” you refer to. So if someone can help, that would be great!

Here’s all 266 Popes from Peter to Benedict XVI ;

List of Popes

Each one is a link, providing information and references for your enjoyment!

 

[a_sinner]

Here’s all 266 Popes from Peter to Benedict XVI ;

List of Popes

Each one is a link, providing information and references for your enjoyment!

I would also comment, How can anyone who trusts in Our Lord Jesus Christ, not trust in his words in Matthew 16:18-19? Of course the Gates of Hell will never prevail against The Church! There has been a visible and well known Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church since the time of the Apostles, it’s very easy and evident to see.

 

[mesl4]

Which things?

like that the bread in communion has to be made with a certain recipe, and that baptismal water has to have salt in it, that you have to move your arms /body a certain way prior to receiving the Eucharist, or when you pray (sign of the cross - left to right/right to left better get it right or else!), kneel w/the proper knee, don’t sing the “Our Father” during mass, etc. These things are preposterous to me, and I think would be to Christ and the apostles. They have nothing to do w/spirit, and everything to do w/authoritarian style dictatorship church leadership and are to me major stumbling blocks in believing the RCC is the true Church.

 

[mesl4]

I would also comment, How can anyone who trusts in Our Lord Jesus Christ, not trust in his words in Matthew 16:18-19? Of course the Gates of Hell will never prevail against The Church! There has been a visible and well known Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church since the time of the Apostles, it’s very easy and evident to see.

It’s absolutely right that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against Christ’s church, but the problem is when we try to institutionalize the Church. People think so worldy and are not thinking of Christ’s church in spiritual ways. Spirit transcends borders/institutions/etc. Just because there is a line of succession, doesn’t mean all those people taught Truth and that those that follow them are part of the Church. There are many Catholics that I don’t think are part of his Church, and many other believers that I think are, based on their faith and how they work out their faith in actions. Christ’s main message was to love him and love others. Serve him, serve others, feed the poor, care for the sick, visit those in prison, etc. THAT is the Church. Not those that happen to use the right external/phsyical formulas.

 

[mesl4]

Here’s all 266 Popes from Peter to Benedict XVI ;

List of Popes

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (76-88)
But are there any writings from these from that “mini dark age?” How do we know Clement/Ignatius had approval by the apostles as to what they was teaching? I assume there are writings giving us these answers or the Church wouldn’t consider them trustworthy.

 

[mesl4]

I think that once you learn the history of how various practices became “legalistic,” you will find that the “legalisms” are aimed at protecting both the Sacraments and the faithful from distortions and abuses.

The Fathers are consulted for their authority but it is the living Magisterium that holds the keys to promulgating doctrine. So we *don’t *believe “everything” the Fathers say as if they cannot err. What you come to by reading the ECFs, however, is a consensus on how the Church thought and taught in that time.

I was mainly referring to writings by those in authority/Popes. Plus, it seems ECFs are used as back up for the Church’s practices, so those thingfs must’ve been considered authoritative.And regarding believing everything/not erring…that’s what we’re supposed to do w/the Pope/Magisterium right? No matter what they teach, we can’t question it. We must assume they are part of this “en persona Cristi” and take it as Truth. Right?

 

[mesl4]

Confession is the BEST part! And it’s deeply scriptural. And it’s liberating beyond belief.
.

What’s great about not being forgiven by God directly? What was the point of Jesus if I still need a mediator? The OT Jews needed their HIgh Priests to make sacrifices on their behalf. The NT reveals Jesus as our new High Priest offering his perfect sacrifice, and ending the need for further mediators (book of Hebrews). It seems like the Catholics are just continuing the OT way in new clothing.

 

[RebeccaJ]

like that the bread in communion has to be made with a certain recipe, and that baptismal water has to have salt in it, that you have to move your arms /body a certain way prior to receiving the Eucharist, or when you pray (sign of the cross - left to right/right to left better get it right or else!), kneel w/the proper knee, don’t sing the “Our Father” during mass, etc. These things are preposterous to me, and I think would be to Christ and the apostles. They have nothing to do w/spirit, and everything to do w/authoritarian style dictatorship church leadership and are to me major stumbling blocks in believing the RCC is the true Church.

Perhaps your RCIA class has taught you the normal form of what people do, in the Latin rite. I found it helpful, but not something that my salvation is dependent upon.

There are traditions in every rite. There are traditions in every church, Catholic or not. The normal way of doing things.

Though I understand not doing things you don’t agree with. i didn’t recite the Nicene creed at Mass for a long time. I didn’t believe a word of it. After a while, I chose to see it as a prayer, and it became a part of my prayers to God, which were focused on finding my way to Him.

No one says you have to cross yourself at all. Nothing is made invalid if you don’t. And yeah, it was weird as all get out to me, at first. I do it the opposite, now and then, just because. I also have read there are rites (valid rites) that the tradition is the opposite. It is grounded in the very earliest of the church. People made signs that showed each other they were Christian.

We sing-song, a chant, the Our Father. The focus is the prayer. I have never heard that you can’t sing it, but then, I have never thought of singing it. Are you sure this is a “rule” and not just the normal form of things. I don’t know. Maybe someone else does.

The liturgy of the Mass is largely based on Jewish forms and tradition. I know that scriptures are sing-sung, a sort of chant, in the Jewish tradition. Perhaps this is the root of how we say the Our Father.

Honestly, these are secondary to everything else to me. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be important to you. I just never thought of focusing on these sort of things.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What’s great about not being forgiven by God directly?

There is a practical benefit of telling your sins to another person and committing to another person not to repeat your sins. And there is a benefit to hearing a person in authority tell you that your particular sins are forgiven.

I understand the point of your question but don’t be too quick to dismiss the virtues of the Catholic confession system.

What was the point of Jesus if I still need a mediator? The OT Jews needed their HIgh Priests to make sacrifices on their behalf. The NT reveals Jesus as our new High Priest offering his perfect sacrifice, and ending the need for further mediators (book of Hebrews). It seems like the Catholics are just continuing the OT way in new clothing.

This is, I think, more true than you realize and probably deserves a thread of its own.

 

[wisdomseeker]

like that the bread in communion has to be made with a certain recipe, and that baptismal water has to have salt in it, that you have to move your arms /body a certain way prior to receiving the Eucharist, or when you pray (sign of the cross - left to right/right to left better get it right or else!), kneel w/the proper knee, don’t sing the “Our Father” during mass, etc. These things are preposterous to me, and I think would be to Christ and the apostles. They have nothing to do w/spirit, and everything to do w/authoritarian style dictatorship church leadership and are to me major stumbling blocks in believing the RCC is the true Church.

Thank God for the Church. without it we would have nothing but a bunch of people with a bunch of opinions on how things should be.

can you imagine? generation after generation, people changing over the years, everyone deciding how the Worship of God should be. just like now. i say that the Church needs more kneeling, more cry before the Lord, more reverence, more holiness.
as for you, you wanted to abolish all these. you wanted to build your own church, you want your way.

let me tell you about the Catholic Church. this Church is here to change us and not the other way around.

if you understand Judaism, you will realize that the Church cannot be that different. why? because she comes from Judaism.

:harp: :knight1:

 

[guanophore]

I can’t believe there are no responses! I’m a wavering Protestant…up and down heading towards Catholicism. This question if for me what it all boils down to. What happened between the apostles and Clement or Ignatius? I can’t seem to find that missing link which makes me hesitant. Maybe there was some rapture or some crazy end of the world thing that happened at the time of the last apostles’ death…the "last martyr " of Revelation and that was when Satan was released to deceive the nations. This is my fear of why there doesn’t seem to be any link in that “mini dark age” you refer to. So if someone can help, that would be great!

What makes you think there is any “gap” or “dark age”? Do you not recognize the ECF’s being consistent with the NT?