B
Bill_Pick
Guest
By what authoritry do Non-Catholic preacher have to use the title of Bishop in from of the name.
- Status
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
What does the Bible teach about it?
S
SpectatorX
Guest
I’m just about 104.3% sure that Paul mentions ordaining Timothy by laying his hands upon him in both of the books bearing the latter’s name, but in my cripplingly forgetful way, I may be mistaken - it may only be mentioned in one of them. In any case, one must be wary of claiming Apostolic authority for oneself having not actually received such, especially given what happened to Korah in Numbers.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
We do not believe we have the same authority of the Apostles.
S
Scoobyshme
Guest
Well, since they don’t have Apostolic succession, they do so by their own authority. This is a free country. Anyone can call themselves anything they want. I could slap a Mercedes Benz hood ornament on my Honda and call it a Mercedes Benz, although that wouldn’t make it one, would it?
J
JohnDamian
Guest
Some Orthodox or Anglican Bishops might have Apostolic Succession.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
And you are right You do not have any authority, the authority is from Jesus Christ
S
SpectatorX
Guest
I suppose “same” may too strong a word in our case as well in some senses more than others, but the fact that the episkopos were ordained, at first, by the apostles and, after no apotles were left, by other episkopos should give one pause when attempting to claim said title without even the slightest shred of a claim to such validity of ordination. In this context, “Apostolic” as I used it refers to origin rather than to equality, specifically (a debate over the latter would prove more tangential than edifying).
In a sense, Scoobyshme is correct in that anyone can claim a title for themselves in this relativistic country. I could call myself the rightful heir to the Prussian throne. It is also true that the rest of us have equal right to scrutinize such statements. For instance, I am not aware of even a single Prussian in my family tree, and therefore my claim to noble status within said currently-nonexistent country is completely preposterous.
On that note, I think I just might start professing Eastern European kingship and ownership of a high-end vehicle from now on. None of you have any idea who I am, anyway, right?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Apostolic Succession
Roman Catholic
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19920708en.html
Orthodox Anglican
Liberal Catholic
kingsgarden.org/English/Organizations/LCC.gb/
Celtic Anabaptist
celtic-anabaptist-ministries.com/apostolic.html
Home Temple Priesthood
hometemple.org/twolines.htm
From what I can tell Apostolic Succession, ie by what authority, does not seem to make a difference in terms of what anyone believes. For example, valid but illicit or whatever these lines are still point to possibly having Apostolic Succession and yet everyone disagrees. I am not being argumentative just curious mainly.
Roman Catholic
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19920708en.html
Orthodox Anglican
eoc.orthodoxanglican.net/eocwebsite/
Liberal Catholic
kingsgarden.org/English/Organizations/LCC.gb/
Celtic Anabaptist
celtic-anabaptist-ministries.com/apostolic.html
Home Temple Priesthood
hometemple.org/twolines.htm
From what I can tell Apostolic Succession, ie by what authority, does not seem to make a difference in terms of what anyone believes. For example, valid but illicit or whatever these lines are still point to possibly having Apostolic Succession and yet everyone disagrees. I am not being argumentative just curious mainly.
S
Scoobyshme
Guest
I would suggest a study of the history of Christianity. From a 10,000 foot view, there was but one Christian Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity, and that was the Catholic Church. No one considered themselves anything but Catholic for these years, although there were some heresies that cropped up among some groups of Catholics, and were straightened out, usually by Councils of the Church.
In 1054 A.D., the Orthodox broke off, but retained Apostolic Succession, and therefore, all seven Sacraments.
In 1517 A.D., Martin Luther, a Catholic monk, schism-ed away and began Protestantism, which has since splintered into literally tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally disagreeing denominations, sowing confusion among many (maybe you, from your post?) as to what the fullness of Christ’s teaching was.
One has to ask, through all of this, who, if anyone, authorized any of these people to start a church apart from the one founded by Christ? I would say no one.
They say you (actually we, as the western Church) schismed from them.
Actually, he was excommunicated away for some things that Trent exonerated him of.
That said, the Lutheran Church has vertually no splinters from it.
And I would ask, by what authority does the pope and Magisterium decide doctrine without the benefit of truly ecumenical council, without the other patriarchates, as was the practice of the early Church?
Jon
R
Rocky
Guest
It is exceedingly strange that you call yourselves the “Lutheran” Church and not the “Catholic” Church if it was your church that was “schismed” from.They say you (actually we, as the western Church) schismed from them.
Actually, he was excommunicated away for some things that Trent exonerated him of.
That said, the Lutheran Church has vertually no splinters from it.
And I would ask, by what authority does the pope and Magisterium decide doctrine without the benefit of truly ecumenical council, without the other patriarchates, as was the practice of the early Church?
Jon
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
From a closer view I see a series of groups whose doctrine we only know from those who were opposed to them.
I also see an early church whose doctrines and practices are similar to ours, even with the lack of information kept by those who adhered to other doctrines.
Prior to Luther I see the Hussites and the Waldensians.
I should add that Catholics would recognize the existence of the Oriental Orthodox and what is now known as the Asssyrian Church of the East prior to the 1054 schism.
Not unlike the name, Roman Catholic Church, which came as the result of a slur, so did the term Lutheran Church. And in the same way, the name, much to Luther’s distress, was adopted. Most knowledgeable Lutherans consider themselves evangelical Catholic.
But I didn’t claim that the Catholic Church schismed from the Lutheran Church. I said that the Orthodox claim Rome schismed from them. I also claim that division, regardless of who schismed from whom, wounds the body of Christ, His Church. And as the CCC says, there is blame enough on both sides.
Jon
R
Rocky
Guest
You are 100% right here.
L
Lutheranteach
Guest
physical apostolic succession is such “yeah, right” with me. It’s so unprovable, unreliable, and I can’t see how it matters in any possible way. Where do we get the authority. The same place you do, via Christ and the Holy Spirit.
I know there is a split among American Lutherans about apostolic succession. I believe my position is probably in the minority, but also more in line with the confessions, where Melanchthon states in the Apology,
“The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention.”
Jon
- Status