Do any Protestant communities have valid Apostolic Succession?

[pablope]

That was done to preserve the church’s power, nothing more. Don’t kid yourself that it was based on God’s divine intervention. Our loving God would never throw out a true believer from the True Church. Only man excommunicates people out of the Catholic Church.

Is it the Church’s fault that one is excommunicated?

Or is it the person’s fault that that person is excommunicated in the first place?

 

[pablope]

Obviously no. But it has no meaning to Protestants. Jesus ate with tax collectors not the Jewish clergy. Only Catholics put any value in apostolic succession, since it distinguishes them in their eyes from other Christians.

.

And the Orthodox too…and it is part of the creeds…if you recite them every sunday…that one, holy catholic and apostolic…or do you stay silent and not say “apostolic” when you say the creed?

Protestants do not emphasize it…because to emphasize it would disprove themselves…so why would they?

 

[GKC]

And the Orthodox too…and it is part of the creeds…if you recite them every sunday…that one, holy catholic and apostolic…or do you stay silent and not say “apostolic” when you say the creed?

Protestants do not emphasize it…because to emphasize it would disprove themselves…so why would they?

Let us not overlook the Anglicans, when speaking of apostolicity.

In the Anglican view, to be sure.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Luth123]

And the Orthodox too…and it is part of the creeds…if you recite them every sunday…that one, holy catholic and apostolic…or do you stay silent and not say “apostolic” when you say the creed?

Protestants do not emphasize it…because to emphasize it would disprove themselves…so why would they?

Protestants acknowledge one catholic and, apostolic church. It’s in our shared Nicene Creed. What Catholics don’t realize there is one, holy, catholic , apostolic church which are all those who truly believe in Jesus as our savior.

It is one (no denominations). It is catholic meaning all-embracing. It is apostolic meaning it originated with the Apostles. There no mention of succession outside of Catholic Church dogma.

It has nothing to do with man made denominations except many people from all denominations including Catholics belong and no single denomination will have it’s members saved.

 

[Spudbynight]

The Anglican Church did have (apostolic successors) bishops’ but these also died with their apostolic faculties, because King Henry the VIII changed the Ordination of bishops to obedience to his own royal crown instead of solely to ordaining his bishop’s to the King Jesus, which broke the apostolic succession in the Anglican Church.

Funnily enough the Anglicans were concerned enough about this to try and regain apostolic succession. Fr. Hunwicke writes about the so called “Dutch Touch” here

liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2008/12/apostolicae-curae.html

That article was written in 2008 when Fr. Hunwicke was an Anglican. Since then his position has changed and he has come into full communion as a Catholic priest.

 

[GKC]

Funnily enough the Anglicans were concerned enough about this to try and regain apostolic succession. Fr. Hunwicke writes about the so called “Dutch Touch” here

liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2008/12/apostolicae-curae.html

That article was written in 2008 when Fr. Hunwicke was an Anglican. Since then his position has changed and he has come into full communion as a Catholic priest.

Yes, I’ve read that. It doesn’t comport with other things I have read on the subject, such as Fr. Moss’ account in his THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, but I am not qualified to judge.

GKC

 

[joe370]

This is the continuation of a side-topic from another thread. I think it deserves it’s own thread…

Well, if all non-Catholic churches, with the exception of the eastern Orthodox churches, are offshoots of the Catholic Church then how can their communities claim apostolic succession? None of them existed from the 1st century to the 16th century.

 

[Luth123]

Is it the Church’s fault that one is excommunicated?

Or is it the person’s fault that that person is excommunicated in the first place?

Yes it is the church’s fault. It is the clergy that make the rules to reject people. Catholics say they hate the sin not the person, Their actions speak differently. Christianity is about the wonderful message of being saved by Jesus, not rejecting true believers.

Our truly loving God would not reject any human who truly believes Jesus is his savor. Why does the church do so?

 

[joe370]

Yes it is the church’s fault. It is the clergy that make the rules to reject people. Catholics say they hate the sin not the person, There actions speak differently.

Our truly loving God would not reject any human who truly believes , just because some man made rule was broken.

Can you provide an example of the CC wrongly excommunicating someone? “If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector” i.e. excommunicated. All churches follow this model, for the most part.

"For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a]** so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.**

 

[Augustine3]

That was done to preserve the church’s power, nothing more. Don’t kid yourself that it was based on God’s divine intervention. Our loving God would never throw out a true believer from the True Church. Only man excommunicates people out of the Catholic Church.

You mean just like St Paul excommunicated a man in his first letter to the Corinthians?

I don’t know why you’re being defensive. You missed the point I was trying to make regarding the deep relationship between Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession. The early church was very dedicated and particular about holding on to the authentic apostolic tradition through apostolic succession, that’s why we Catholics say in our creed “we believe in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Well, if all non-Catholic churches, with the exception of the eastern Orthodox churches, are offshoots of the Catholic Church then how can their communities claim apostolic succession? None of them existed from the 1st century to the 16th century.

Well, perhaps they aren’t. There is at least some evidence that the church in Britain dates from the early 1st century, and certainly it was in existence long before the Augustinian mission.

 

[GKC]

Well, perhaps they aren’t. There is at least some evidence that the church in Britain dates from the early 1st century, and certainly it was in existence long before the Augustinian mission.

No evidence, but some legends, for the Joseph of Arimathea/Glastonbury stories and related pious beliefs. There are some vague hints for the Church’s origin in the early 3rd century, in Tertullian, and Origen, but these are open to interpretation. By the fourth century, some facts are known. The Church in the Isles was at least organized into some number of dioceses; 3 bishops from Britain attended the council of Arles in 314. British bishops attended the council at Rimini, in 359 AD (though they were so poor they had to let the Emperor pay) and other facts slowly emerged from the mists of history. But it is all far from clear.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

That was done to preserve the church’s power, nothing more. Don’t kid yourself that it was based on God’s divine intervention. Our loving God would never throw out a true believer from the True Church. Only man excommunicates people out of the Catholic Church.

I think we need to be careful here, if we say that ecclesiastical orders were simply designed to preserve the power of the Church. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession says:

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.

Two things are true, however; 1) that we view these orders as man-made, but that is not a bad thing, necessarily, as most things done by the early Church and the Fathers were good things. It is clear that the reformers felt strongly that we, as Catholics of the Augsburg Confession, support orders for the reasons Melanchthon mentions. And I believe that the Northern European Lutherans of the Porvoo Communion, and even the ELCA in America, have done the right thing in trying to maintain succession, as that is in keeping with the confessions.
2) That at the time of the Reformation, Evangelical (Lutheran) churches were not granted ordinations by the bishops of that time in Germany, and that the reformers viewed that as an abuse of power. That said, ISTM that we as modern Lutheran should not disregard succession on those grounds.

Jon

 

[Picky_Picky]

No evidence, but some legends, for the Joseph of Arimathea/Glastonbury stories and related pious beliefs. There are some vague hints for the Church’s origin in the early 3rd century, in Tertullian, and Origen, but these are open to interpretation. By the fourth century, some facts are known. The Church in the Isles was at least organized into some number of dioceses; 3 bishops from Britain attended the council of Arles in 314. British bishops attended the council at Rimini, in 359 AD (though they were so poor they had to let the Emperor pay) and other facts slowly emerged from the mists of history. But it is all far from clear.

GKC

Yes, we’re dangerously close to Dan Brown territory here, aren’t we? Do I take it you are unconvinced about Aristobulus?

 

[JonNC]

Obviously no. But it has no meaning to Protestants. Jesus ate with tax collectors not the Jewish clergy. Only Catholics put any value in apostolic succession, since it distinguishes them in their eyes from other Christians.

Based on the quote I provided from the Apology, I think it is plain that the Lutheran reformers felt differently about succession. It is also true that the Orthodox, and other groups including Anglicans, place great value on succession. Melanchthon indicates that orthodox Lutheranism does, too.

I also think we should, as Lutherans, be careful when placing ourselves with “protestants” in any kind blanket statement.

Jon

 

[Luth123]

Based on the quote I provided from the Apology, I think it is plain that the Lutheran reformers felt differently about succession. It is also true that the Orthodox, and other groups including Anglicans, place great value on succession. Melanchthon indicates that orthodox Lutheranism does, too.

I also think we should, as Lutherans, be careful when placing ourselves with “protestants” in any kind blanket statement.

Jon

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut Jon.
All very true. Luther wanted as the Reformer title implies reform the church. He never intended or even wished to create the denominations we have today. I think many of the later Reformers considered the Catholic Church too corrupt to reform and they intended to create new denominations.

The net result now is a complete spectrum of denominations with varying degrees of commonality but they all do share a common history of the early Catholic church. The lines of classification need to drawn somewhere.

Although I identify and attend an ELCA church I do not always agree with what I consider the man made dogma of the modern ELCA church. I’m also not a fan of non-denominational Southern Baptists either since they totally reject any ties to Catholic Church which they are just kidding themselves. I’m very surprised how many Protestants don’t know the early Catholic Church picked and choose the books of Bible from available literature.

I respect the LCMS and their leaders have good intentions but I consider the lack of ecumenical relations as an unacceptable position.

 

[pablope]

Yes it is the church’s fault.

Oh really…it is the Church’s fault?

Can you provide an example were an excommunication was the Church’s fault?

So, if the church made a rule, a decision, and if someone chose to break that rule, that decision…it is the fault of the Church and not the individual’s decision to break that rule?

Christianity is about the wonderful message of being saved by Jesus, not rejecting true believers.

 

[pablope]

Protestants acknowledge one catholic and, apostolic church. It’s in our shared Nicene Creed. What Catholics don’t realize there is one, holy, catholic , apostolic church which are all those who truly believe in Jesus as our savior.

It is one (no denominations). It is catholic meaning all-embracing. It is apostolic meaning it originated with the Apostles. There no mention of succession outside of Catholic Church dogma.

It has nothing to do with man made denominations except many people from all denominations including Catholics belong and no single denomination will have it’s members saved.

yeah…but with no pope in the realm of protestants, and with each one acting as their own pope, the meaning of catholic and apostolic has taken on different meanings and connotations than when these creeds were made and recited.

 

[GKC]

Yes, we’re dangerously close to Dan Brown territory here, aren’t we? Do I take it you are unconvinced about Aristobulus?

True, as also of the founding, and presence there of (pick one) St. Barnabas, St. Paul, St. Peter, and sundry others. Per the legends.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Yes it is the church’s fault. It is the clergy that make the rules to reject people. Catholics say they hate the sin not the person, Their actions speak differently. Christianity is about the wonderful message of being saved by Jesus, not rejecting true believers.

Our truly loving God would not reject any human who truly believes Jesus is his savor. Why does the church do so?

I’m inclined to think that even some of your friends in the ELCA would disagree with you. After all, you recite a Creed that was written in opposition to the Arians.

P.S. After reading your latest post, I realized that you may already be aware of your fellow ELCA-members disagreeing with you:

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut Jon.
All very true. Luther wanted as the Reformer title implies reform the church. He never intended or even wished to create the denominations we have today. I think many of the later Reformers considered the Catholic Church too corrupt to reform and they intended to create new denominations.

The net result now is a complete spectrum of denominations with varying degrees of commonality but they all do share a common history of the early Catholic church. The lines of classification need to drawn somewhere.

Although I identify and attend an ELCA church I do not always agree with what I consider the man made dogma of the modern ELCA church. I’m also not a fan of non-denominational Southern Baptists either since they totally reject any ties to Catholic Church which they are just kidding themselves. I’m very surprised how many Protestants don’t know the early Catholic Church picked and choose the books of Bible from available literature.

I respect the LCMS and their leaders have good intentions but I consider the lack of ecumenical relations as an unacceptable position.