Do any Protestant communities have valid Apostolic Succession?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rfournier103
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
joe370 said:
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.:confused:
Click to expand...
Actually, there are at least 4 communions that predate the 16th century: Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Oriental (Miaphysite) Orthodoxy, and the Assyrian Church of the East. (Some Hussite groups make a similar claim, but it isn’t universally accepted.)
 
Luth123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s quite a statement comming from a member of the FIRST man-made denomination. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. The Protestant communities were founded by humans.

You never answered my question about WHO guided the Church from 33 AD until the compilation of the Holy Bible in c. 393 AD.

What authority existed before Luther?

When Luther left the Church that Jesus Christ founded, he romeoved himself from Apostolic succession, did he not?
Luth123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
(Bold is mine.)

What MAN MADE rules of the Catholic Church will get one excommunicated for not following? That is a serious assertion, and I think we all would like a serious answer.
 
Peter_J said:
Actually, there are at least 4 communions that predate the 16th century: Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Oriental (Miaphysite) Orthodoxy, and the Assyrian Church of the East. (Some Hussite groups make a similar claim, but it isn’t universally accepted.)
Click to expand...
What about the Nestorians and other heretical groups and let us not forget Islam who carried with it the Arian Eastern Church’s heretical teaching of Christ.
 
rfournier103 said:
That’s quite a statement comming from a member of the FIRST man-made denomination. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. The Protestant communities were founded by humans.
Click to expand...
ALL Christian denominations and religions are man made. The One True Church includes all believers who may or may not be a member of a man made denomination.
rfournier103 said:
You never answered my question about WHO guided the Church from 33 AD until the compilation of the Holy Bible in c. 393 AD.
Click to expand...
Obviously Jesus guided the One True Church. As you know the Pope lead the man made denomination called the the Catholic Church. We just have a difference in the definition of the True Church.
rfournier103 said:
What authority existed before Luther?
Click to expand...
Obviously Jesus.
Again why does man’s authority matter? Luther just pointed out obvious corruptions in the Catholic Church. Luther is not nor was he an authority. He was just brave enough to confront the corruption he saw as member of the Catholic Church. He was a sinful man like everyone else on this planet except Jesus. By today’s standard Luther would even be considered anti-Semite. I also don’t agree with Luther’s suggestion the Pope is really the Anti-Christ. The Pope like Luther, me, you and everyone else are just sinful men with no divine authority.
rfournier103 said:
When Luther left the Church that Jesus Christ founded, he romeoved himself from Apostolic succession, did he not?
Click to expand...
First Luther never left the Catholic Church. He was excommunicated by men based on man made Catholic dogma. Luther did no leave the True Church. It’s very simple if one can accept the True Church led by Jesus is not the Catholic Church nor any other denomination.

Why does man’s succession matter when Jesus is the authority?
rfournier103 said:
What MAN MADE rules of the Catholic Church will get one excommunicated for not following? That is a serious assertion, and I think we all would like a serious answer.
Click to expand...
See my post above about Luther. Also most of the early Gnostics were excommunicated for having different man made interpretations of the scripture. Why excommunicated? Because the entire concept of Gnosticism threatens the authority and power of the Church. As you can tell I have certain Gnostic beliefs.
 
1 Timothy 3:15 tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If this is so, why is there so much chaos in Protestantism? If we ALL are “the church”, as some say; does that mean that truth is what we all reach agreement on?

Some Protestants reject same-sex “marriages”, while others embrace them and even encourage them.

Some reject abortion; others see it as no big thing.

Some ordain women; others will not.

The list is long…

If “the church” is all of us, why so much disagreement on what God wants? I have no wish to single out the Lutherans, but one quoted Luther as saying that “each man has a pope in his belly”, how does that jibe with Peter saying that:

“Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” ~ Peter 1:19-21.

The need for extra-personal interpretaion is made quite clear in The Acts of the Apostles. (bolded are mine)

Then the angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, “Get up and head south on the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza, the desert route.” So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship, and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.” Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. This was the scripture passage he was reading: “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opened not his mouth. In (his) humiliation justice was denied him. Who will tell of his posterity? For his life is taken from the earth.” Then the eunuch said to Philip in reply, “I beg you, about whom is the prophet saying this? About himself, or about someone else?” Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him. As they traveled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look, there is water. What is to prevent my being baptized?” Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and he baptized him. ~ Acts 8:26-38 (note on verse 37: The oldest and best manuscripts of Acts omit this verse, which is a Western text reading: "And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he said in reply, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ ")

The Ethiopian was clearly not illiterate, but was in need of instruction from Philip. The Ethiopian was in need of Baptism, too.

Is it found ANYWHERE in the Bible that we are ‘on our own’ when it comes to deciding on what God wants us to do and believe? And how to read the Bible?
 
rfournier103 said:
1 Timothy 3:15 tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If this is so, why is there so much chaos in Protestantism? If we ALL are “the church”, as some say; does that mean that truth is what we all reach agreement on
Click to expand...
Again this is very simple. “The Chuch” mentioned in Timothy is Jesus’s One True Church those who are believers. It is not a man made denomination with man made dogma.

A better term to use would be the Kingdom since the term Church has multiple meanings which is the reason of our disagreement.

It’s no different then any other interpretation.
Luke 1:28 is a good example: The Catholic interpretation of “Mary full of grace” and the Protestant interpretation as “Mary highly favored”
 
rfournier103 said:
Is it found ANYWHERE in the Bible that we are ‘on our own’ when it comes to deciding on what God wants us to do and believe? And how to read the Bible?
Click to expand...
If one takes in account the time frame of the Books of the Bible very few people could read/write so teaching was essential. Self study was even an option as it is now. It also did help that the Catholic Church excommunicated the Gnostic and destroyed many of their writings. It really discouraged any self thinking and made people follow the Church like sheep or be excommunicated.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
Many of the protestant reformers left the Catholic church with valid priestly faculties but these died with them, because they had no Bishop to ordain a bishop or validate priest’s and deacons.

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.

There are some western Catholics that are in schism with the bishop of Rome, who maintain a valid priesthood and some valid bishops, but these are not yet fully separated from the valid priesthood and sacraments.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the SSPX? They may have a valid priesthood, but their priests do not have priestly faculties and may not administer the sacraments.
 
Peter_J said:
Actually, there are at least 4 communions that predate the 16th century: Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Oriental (Miaphysite) Orthodoxy, and the Assyrian Church of the East. (Some Hussite groups make a similar claim, but it isn’t universally accepted.)
Click to expand...
Agreed.👍 I was referring to the western non-Catholic churches e.g. protestant…I just hate using the word protestant…🤷
 
GKC said:
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
Click to expand...
I suppose those who helped these legends along their way felt a myth could hold as much “truth” as a fact. Do you think that is what is happening in Hippolytus, or is it just that you think the doubtful provenance of Seventy Apostles makes it valueless as evidence?
 
The Catholic Church is founded on Jesus Christ who chose Peter even before he called Peter. In John 1:35-42 Jesus renamed Simon Cephas. And on this rock etc.

The Protestant position is that that is very awkward. How to deal with that claim? Firstly Peter is just a small rock and then secondarily the Apostolic succession comes from Paul. Protestant churches really do love to discuss the writings of Paul more than the 4 gospels. The moment of triumph is of course when Paul withstood Peter. In my evangelical church we read the writings of Paul all the time. I went to a Catholic Church and they read the gospels.

Do you see what we did? We over-ruled the Catholic Church by elevating Paul to a higher standing than Peter. Put down Peter raise up Paul. So the Protestant community claims a valid Apostolic succession but it is Paul not Peter.

I have trouble with this because Paul was chosen by Jesus Christ to evangelize the Gentiles, whereas Peter had already been evangelizing for some time prior. Peter had been with Jesus and was chosen early by Jesus to go through his discipleship. He was then given special assurances while Paul was still a Jesus hater. So Peters standing should be far greater than Pauls and the mere fact that Peter didn’t write lots does not mean he didn’t do lots.

Paul has become the patron-saint of the protestant church.
 
Darryl_B said:
The Catholic Church is founded on Jesus Christ who chose Peter even before he called Peter. In John 1:35-42 Jesus renamed Simon Cephas. And on this rock etc.

The Protestant position is that that is very awkward. How to deal with that claim? Firstly Peter is just a small rock and then secondarily the Apostolic succession comes from Paul. Protestant churches really do love to discuss the writings of Paul more than the 4 gospels. The moment of triumph is of course when Paul withstood Peter. In my evangelical church we read the writings of Paul all the time. I went to a Catholic Church and they read the gospels.

Do you see what we did? We over-ruled the Catholic Church by elevating Paul to a higher standing than Peter. Put down Peter raise up Paul. So the Protestant community claims a valid Apostolic succession but it is Paul not Peter.

I have trouble with this because Paul was chosen by Jesus Christ to evangelize the Gentiles, whereas Peter had already been evangelizing for some time prior. Peter had been with Jesus and was chosen early by Jesus to go through his discipleship. He was then given special assurances while Paul was still a Jesus hater. So Peters standing should be far greater than Pauls and the mere fact that Peter didn’t write lots does not mean he didn’t do lots.

Paul has become the patron-saint of the protestant church.
Click to expand...
Broad brush statements about “the Protestant church” generally don’t work.
Lutherans have not elevated Paul. Paul is not read more than the Gospels. There is always a gospel reading in the lectionary. Paul is read a lot because there is always an epistle reading in the lectionary, and most of them are from Paul.

Peter’s confession of faith is the statement of faith for the entire Church. Was he a central leader of the Church? Absolutely.

Jon
 
I think you will find you are a small exception to the rule, not the general position of modern day Protestants.
 
Indifferently said:
I think you have a muddled version of what is meant by “intention”. If it depended on the religious views of the individual bishop/priest, even RCs could not be sure they were receiving a valid sacrament on Sunday mornings.
Click to expand...
Until evidence to the contrary, one would be fairly assured of validity in RC churches, as religious views, or strength of belief are a different issue than a general intention to do what the Church does, and a formal contrary intention.

First, does apostolic succession even exist. In the case of Holy Orders and Apostolica Curae, from the Roman vantage point, Anglicans at least prior to the Old Catholic involvement in some consecrations in the early 1900’s were held to be invalid, so intention or no intention, even if only the intention to do what the Church does was a moot point. After, one would have to look at the lines of succession with Old Catholic lines. GKC was the first Anglican/Anglo-Catholic I’ve encountered who was able to support any documentation that these OC bishops participated in the actual laying on of hands and did not act as simple observers. Even the folks I spoke to at St. Mary’s in Los Feliz, and St. Clement’s were unsure of where it would be documented, I have no reason to believe GKC here and on other boards is anything but honest and well read on the subject.

As to the TAC bishop I’ve brought up, it would be a difficult to argue in favor of the ordinations he preformed, if upon further investigation beyond the conversation I had with him that for a matter such as Holy Orders found him holding a positive contrary intention, that he intended to not ordain priests to offer sacrifice (if this bishop did somehow have valid orders) would be overcome a general intent to do what the Church does. But paired with other statements he made against the Mass being a Sacrifice and the real presence as anything more than a symbolic presence of Jesus in the congregation and not a transformation of the elements. However as he was speaking to a group, and I did not have the ability to question him further, there may be a slim that his lack of theological formation, as can be found among some of the TAC clergy in the U.S. could effect the issue.

A similar case was discussed while I was In the seminary there was a case of a bishop who near the end of his life admitted that his dislike for the Jesuits was so great that he formulated the intention to not ordain any Jesuit to the priesthood. Those who had gone through the rite with him were all ordianed by another bishop upon the revelation of the information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top