Comparing the Apostolic Churches

[Metaron]

Hello, this thread is an information-gathering thread, so debate should be minimum. It’s purpose is to compare/contrast the various views of all the apostolic (i.e., having Apostolic Succession) Churches as far as:

1.Marian Doctrines
2.View of Original Sin
3.A Intermediate State (Purgatory to Roman Catholics)

For these apostolic Churches:

A.The Roman Catholic Church
B.The Eastern Orthodox Churches
C.The Anglican Churches (including *In Continuum *Churches)
D.The Swedish Lutherans (Apostolic Succession, right?)
E.The Ethiopian Orthodox Church
F.The Mar Toma Churches
G.The Coptic Orthodox Church
H.The Charismatic Episcopal Church (which has valid Succession)

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Metaron, and congratulations on you moves into Apostolic Christianity. I can understand your interest on this subject.

On the subject matter of this thread I have two thoughts…

• The subject matter is a bit too broad for one thread, and…
• The Anglicans, Lutherans and Charismatic Episcopalians should in no way be classified as Apostolic churches, no matter what one may think about ‘succession’.
  No way.

I am slightly curious as to how this survey will turn out though.

Pax et Bonum,

 

[Metaron]

Hello Metaron, and congratulations on you moves into Apostolic Christianity. I can understand your interest on this subject.

Thank you, Hesychios. And thanks for your response.

The subject matter is a bit too broad for one thread, and…

Well, perhaps we can narrow it down…

The Anglicans, Lutherans and Charismatic Episcopalians should in no way be classified as Apostolic churches, no matter what one may think about ‘succession’. No way.

Ok, I understand you’re logic as far as the Lutherans and Charismatic Episcopalians, but why not the Anglicans? A lot of them have apostolic succession, especially the ones In Continuum which are very similar to the Orthodox churches as far as governace. So why not? They did maintain Apostolic Succession and a traditional understantding of the Faith, right?

As far as the Lutherans, I was specifically referring to the Swedish Lutherans, and I heard that they have, actually, maintained Apostolic Succession.

And the Charismatic Episcopalians, they are completely non-Anglican and are completely unrelated to them, and have to be trated separately. I believe their succession is derived from the Old Catholic Church.

I guess my logic is:

Valid Apostolic Succession = Valid Sacraments = The Right to be called “Apostolic”

Is this incorrect, Hesychios? Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[TNT]

…I guess my logic is:

Valid Apostolic Succession = Valid Sacraments = The Right to be called “Apostolic”

Is this incorrect, Hesychios? Correct me if I’m wrong.

Not quite:
You are making some assumptions that may not be there:
RE:
Ordinations, especially:
Valid Apostolic Succession = Proper intent + Proper Form = Valid Sacraments = The Right to be called “Apostolic”.

The Old Catholics I believe still use the Proper Form & Intent.
However, the Anglican definitely do not.
I have serious doubts about Swedish Lutheran as to intent. If they deny the Sacrificial priesthood, or the forgiving of Sins via Confession.

If the Intent or the Form or the Matter was corrupted, then they are invalid, regardless of succession. Succession is not transmitted unless these parts also are valid…Intent & Form.
So, Lineage is only part of it.

In any case, the Sacraments are illicit in the Eyes of the Traditional Catholic Teaching. That is, they convey no grace proper to them outside the Catholic Church, beyond Baptism.

A valid but illicitly performed sacrament is not only useless, it is to the detriment of the both parties.

 

[Metaron]

Not quite:
You are making some assumtions that may not be there:
RE:
Ordinations, especially:
Valid Apostolic Succession = Proper intent + Proper Form = Valid Sacraments = The Right to be called “Apostolic”.

The Old Catholics I believe still use the Proper Form & Intent.
However, the Anglican definitely do not.

If the Intent or the Form or the Matter was corrupted, then they are invalid, regardless of succession. Succession is not transmitted unless these parts also are valid…Intent & Form.
So, Lineage is only part of it.

In any case, the Sacraments are illicit in the Eyes of the Traditional Catholic Teaching. That is, they convey no grace proper to them outside the Catholic Church, beyond Baptism.

A valid but illicitly performed sacrament is not only useless, it is to the detriment of the both parties.

Not all Anglicans have the same form/intent, though? Some have the proper intent and form…? Right?

 

[Metaron]

In any case, the Sacraments are illicit in the Eyes of the Traditional Catholic Teaching. That is, they convey no grace proper to them outside the Catholic Church, beyond Baptism.

So to be illicit is also to be invalid? Even Holy Orders???

 

[bengal_fan]

so, most protestants would say they have apostolic succession as well. you can think what you want, but if we believe in the Jesus of the Bible and history, then that faith had to come from somewhere. it was passed down from the apostles, so all of us can trace it back to them. i believe in the creeds. i would say my faith tradition has succession as well. anyway, i know i’m not going to change your mind on that thinking and that’s fine. it’s just that these forums have really been overrun by folks who are just downright mean. most of them don’t really know what protestants believe, yet they call them names (like antichrist…yes it’s been said on these forums) and condemn them to hell. it’s all good though. good luck in your “search” for answers.

 

[GKC]

Not all Anglicans have the same form/intent, though? Some have the proper intent and form…? Right?

Yes, it depends on which Anglicans you mean. The RC position that Anglicans do not possess Apostolic succession, is iterated in Apostolicae Curae, which declared the Edwardine ordinal to be invalid, as to form. The issue of invalid intent is generally taken to refer to the intent of those ordaining Archbishop Parker, with the Edwardine Ordinal. The two points together, in RC eyes, render Anglicans without Apostolic succession, from that point on.

The Ordinal was changed in 1662, and the change removed the stated defect of form, coincidentally. But, in the RCC’s position, succession was lost already, and could not be regained.

The infusion of Old Catholic/PNCC lines into Anglicanism, beginning in 1932, complicates the issue. As does the general trend in offical Anglicanism to invalid matter (females).

As you state, the Continuum Anglicans are more likely to possess Apostolic succession (and valid orders and sacraements) than your average Anglican. But I wouldn’t expect the average RC to accept that. And if they did, the succession would yield (in thier eyes) illicit orders.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[Metaron]

so, most protestants would say they have apostolic succession as well. you can think what you want, but if we believe in the Jesus of the Bible and history, then that faith had to come from somewhere. it was passed down from the apostles, so all of us can trace it back to them. i believe in the creeds. i would say my faith tradition has succession as well. anyway, i know i’m not going to change your mind on that thinking and that’s fine. it’s just that these forums have really been overrun by folks who are just downright mean. most of them don’t really know what protestants believe, yet they call them names (like antichrist…yes it’s been said on these forums) and condemn them to hell. it’s all good though. good luck in your “search” for answers.

I’m sorry, Bengal_Fan, I didn’t mean to demean you or anything… you’re right that we disagree on this issue, but I’m not meaning to infuriate you or anyone.Sorry… The “Antichrist” line and “Whore of Babylon” line have been tossed by both sides, unfortunately.

I apologize if I have offended you.

 

[jay29]

I would venture to say that anyone who claims to have Apostolic Succession and ordains female priests, those holy orders would certainly be invalid.

 

[TNT]

So to be illicit is also to be invalid? Even Holy Orders???

No.
Think of this crude analogy:

Hetero sex is valid. That is, it really occurred.
Outside of Marriage to each other it is illicit.
Does it convey the Graces of marriage consumation. No.
Why?
Because it is illicit, i.e. spiritually “illegal”.
Does it work to the detriment of the parties?
Yes.
Why?
Because it puts them in the state of serious sin.
Instead of it receiving God’s Blessing, it does just the opposite.

---

A Sacrament may actually occur…Valid.
It may be illicit to perfom it outside the Church to whom it was given to safeguard…Illicit.
Instead of it receiving God’s Blessing/Grace, it does just the opposite.

 

[TNT]

so, most protestants would say they have apostolic succession as well. you can think what you want, but if we believe in the Jesus of the Bible and history, then that faith had to come from somewhere. it was passed down from the apostles, so all of us can trace it back to them. i believe in the creeds. i would say my faith tradition has succession as well. anyway, i know i’m not going to change your mind on that thinking and that’s fine. it’s just that these forums have really been overrun by folks who are just downright mean. most of them don’t really know what protestants believe, yet they call them names (like antichrist…yes it’s been said on these forums) and condemn them to hell. it’s all good though. good luck in your “search” for answers.

Four points.

1. You simply redefined Apostolic succession, then proceed to show that you have it based on that novel definition.
   Ex: I redefine marriage as a union of a couple.
   Then I make a union between to women, and say that is marriage.
   Clever eh?
2. Calling epithets to others on posts will get you or anyone else banned. So, if that happened, then it’s easy enough to report it and get results.
3. We have experienced far more “mean” non-catholics in proportion than we do “mean” catholics. That’s a fact and has been for years here.
4. Actually, we pretty much do know what protestants believe, or at least the official teaching of that sect. Many of us were life long protestants, including several of the officials of this Forum.
   We can’t speak for any one protestant because they have private, infallible interpretation of Scripture, which can range all over the biblical map.

 

[GKC]

I would venture to say that anyone who claims to have Apostolic Succession and ordains female priests, those holy orders would certainly be invalid.

You are absolutely correct. Invalid matter.

GKC

 

[Alexius]

Hello, this thread is an information-gathering thread, so debate should be minimum. It’s purpose is to compare/contrast the various views of all the apostolic (i.e., having Apostolic Succession) Churches as far as:

1.Marian Doctrines
2.View of Original Sin
3.A Intermediate State (Purgatory to Roman Catholics)

For these apostolic Churches:

A.The Roman Catholic Church
B.The Eastern Orthodox Churches
C.The Anglican Churches (including *In Continuum *Churches)
D.The Swedish Lutherans (Apostolic Succession, right?)
E.The Ethiopian Orthodox Church
F.The Mar Toma Churches
G.The Coptic Orthodox Church
H.The Charismatic Episcopal Church (which has valid Succession)

Well, I think debates are already going, but anyway…

Apostolic Churches according to the RCC:

Roman Catholic Church
Orthodox Eastern Church
Oriental non-Chalcedonian churches
Assyrian Church of the East

Valid Sacraments and Ordinations:
Polish National Catholic Church (separated from Union of Utrecht over ordination of women and homosexuality)
…

 

[Alexius]

Marian doctrines:

1 Theotokos “Mother of God”
2 Ever-Virgin (Perpetual Virgin)
3 Assumption/Dormition
4 Immaculate Conception

*Indicates dogma

Roman Catholic Church:

1 Yes*
2 Yes*
3 Yes*
4 Yes*

Eastern Orthodox Church:

1 Yes*
2 Yes*
3 Yes
4 No

Non-Chalcedonian Oriental churches:

1 Yes*
2 Yes*
3 Yes
4 No

Assyrian Church:

1 No
2 Yes*
3 Yes
4 No

I would add that in the Eastern churches, just because a teaching is not “dogmatized,” does not negate its authority and testimony. Things are only dogmatized when necessary in the East…

 

[Alexius]

1. Original Sin:

Roman Catholic Church:

In the Latin theology, sin may be divided into two kinds:
Original and Actual.

Original Sin is simultaneously used to refer to the (first) sin of Adam and Eve, as well as the “stain” of sin passed from generation to generation. This “stain” is seen as a lack of sactifying grace, but is sometimes also associated with guilt. Along with this, we inherit death and corruption–especially concupiscence-the natural yearning for sin. Through baptism, all sins are remitted; both actual and original. An individual is seen as born in the imade of God; however, they are wounded by sin and need the infusion of grace from God (unmerited) in order to able to participate in salvation.

Eastern churches:

Most Eastern churches hold similar views to each other of original sin. Many; however, do not use the term “original sin” when describing this belief, as it comes from a Latin theologians.

Specifically, original sin (or “ancestral sin” as some prefer) refers not to a stain, but to the sin of Adam and Eve. Most Easterners see sin as strictly “actual” sins committed by an individual. This can lead to confusion in language. What we receive from Adam and Eve is received by sharing in the same nature and human race as Adam. We are not guilty of his sin, but we receive his flesh. Furthermore, we receive from Adam two things: First corruption. That is distortion of the senses, a desire to sin to avoid death and darkening of the nous, or mind. Secondly, it entails death, or mortality. This death is two-fold, says the Philaret Catechism (used by the Orthodox Church): it is physical, when the soul leaves the body, and spiritual, when the soul loses the grace of God that quickened it. Man is not deprived of grace, as God works on man from the outside, but rather he is deprived of the sanctifying grace within his soul, which enables him to participate more and more in the divine nature, also called theosis.

 

[angelusm]

Hello, this thread is an information-gathering thread, so debate should be minimum. It’s purpose is to compare/contrast the various views of all the apostolic (i.e., having Apostolic Succession) Churches as far as:

1.Marian Doctrines
2.View of Original Sin
3.A Intermediate State (Purgatory to Roman Catholics)

For these apostolic Churches:

A.The Roman Catholic Church
B.The Eastern Orthodox Churches
C.The Anglican Churches (including *In Continuum *Churches)
D.The Swedish Lutherans (Apostolic Succession, right?)
E.The Ethiopian Orthodox Church
F.The Mar Toma Churches
G.The Coptic Orthodox Church
H.The Charismatic Episcopal Church (which has valid Succession)

None of protestant, anglican or charismatic denominations can call themselves “apostolic”. If you think that Swedish Lutherans have apostolic succession, than why not German Lutherans or Chinese Lutherans?

 

[bengal_fan]

I’m sorry, Bengal_Fan, I didn’t mean to demean you or anything… you’re right that we disagree on this issue, but I’m not meaning to infuriate you or anyone.Sorry… The “Antichrist” line and “Whore of Babylon” line have been tossed by both sides, unfortunately.

I apologize if I have offended you.

it’s not necessarily i who was feeling demeaned. it’s just that there has been a rash of these blanket statements made about protestants here on this forum lately and it’s getting a bit ridiculous. i appreciate your response metaron. it’s okay to disagree in my opinion and still be friends. i agree that both sides have said some pretty harsh things and they are both wrong for doing so.

 

[bengal_fan]

1. You simply redefined Apostolic succession, then proceed to show that you have it based on that novel definition.
   Ex: I redefine marriage as a union of a couple.
   Then I make a union between to women, and say that is marriage.
   Clever eh?.

in your opinion that’s what i’ve done. i don’t see it that way. it is the apostolic faith that has been passed down, and that is what protestants would say they have, is the apostolic faith (as stated in the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed… most protestants would agree with those).

1. Calling epithets to others on posts will get you or anyone else banned. So, if that happened, then it’s easy enough to report it and get results…

what would be the point of that? to get rid of anyone who disagrees with me?

1. We have experienced far more “mean” non-catholics in proportion than we do “mean” catholics. That’s a fact and has been for years here…

doesn’t make it right. in fact, it should be a cause for catholics to not do it as oppose to finally having a place where they can be just as mean-spirited as those who persecute them.

1. Actually, we pretty much do know what protestants believe, or at least the official teaching of that sect. Many of us were life long protestants, including several of the officials of this Forum.
   We can’t speak for any one protestant because they have private, infallible interpretation of Scripture, which can range all over the biblical map.

actually, you might know what your particular denomination taught, but there are very, very few on here who have studied what each denomination (or "non-denomination) teaches. you are right when you say you can’t speak for individuals, just as i (or anyone else) can’t speak for individual catholics either. from what is tossed around on these forums, i would have to say that your assumption that “we pretty much do know” is not accurrate. i am not saying that if you did know you wouldn’t have left or anything. i would say i am probably more “well-versed” in what the different protestant sects as well as catholic and orthodox churches teach than most people on here (since it has been my area of study for a number of years now) and i am probably pretty close to coming back to catholicism. but it is fairly obvious that most catholics on these forums really don’t know what the different protestant churches teach anymore than jack chick knows what the catholic church teaches. they get it from co-workers, neighbors, and “crazy” street preachers (as well as from other ill-informed catholics).

 

[Hesychios]

None of protestant, anglican or charismatic denominations can call themselves “apostolic”. If you think that Swedish Lutherans have apostolic succession, than why not German Lutherans or Chinese Lutherans?

The Lutheran church of Sweden is a special case. They do have a more “Catholic” sense of the Episcopate, unlike most Germans who simply elect a bishop for a limited term. The monarchy latched on to Lutheranism for political reasons, taking control of the church but not intending to “reform” it.

There was actually a point in time when a king of Sweden offered to reunite his church with the Holy See. *Provided *they were allowed to worship in the vernacular and have optional, rather than mandatory celibacy. I think that there were other minor conditions as well, but not really significant

The Holy See rejected the offer.

Nevertheless the church in Sweden has been more conservative in most ways, something like High Church Anglicanism.

Michael