If the priesthood of all believers rejects heirarchy, why have a leadership structure?

[ltwin]

Interesting. Which one do you follow?

Neither in terms of being a Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Anglican. Yet, I can always learn something from them and agree with them where they align with Scripture.

The reason I cited them was not to suggest that I agreed 100 percent with each of their theories but to show that while supporting Apostolic Succession they also agreed with other Protestants (namely Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals and Methodists) that the historic episcopate, while perhaps preferable, is not indispensable to the nature of ordained ministry and leadership in the church, which became a contested point in this thread.

 

[ltwin]

But a challenge:

Can you identify any living bishop in those groups that were not either ordained by another bishop or confirmed by another bishop (as Peter confirmed Paul)?

I don’t think so. It’s an exception that has no example. It exists only to serve as prima facie justification for their separations.

Well, since you made a challenge.

I don’t have time to look it up, but I know this. Prior to 1999, no bishop in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (the largest Lutheran denomination in the US) was ordained in the historic episcopate. They did not even claim Apostolic Succession.

The ELCA only required bishops to be consecrated or reconsecrated through ancient lines when they agreed to enter into full communion with the Episcopal Church. So, for most of the 20th century, Lutheran bishops in America were not in Apostolic Succession and never claimed to be.In fact, there were no American Lutheran bishops until 1970.

“Bridging Traditions,” Washington Post

 

[Vonsalza]

Well, since you made a challenge.

I don’t have time to look it up, but I know this. Prior to 1999, no bishop in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (the largest Lutheran denomination in the US) was ordained in the historic episcopate. They did not even claim Apostolic Succession.

The ELCA only required bishops to be consecrated or reconsecrated through ancient lines when they agreed to enter into full communion with the Episcopal Church. So, for most of the 20th century, Lutheran bishops in America were not in Apostolic Succession and never claimed to be.In fact, there were no American Lutheran bishops until 1970.

“Bridging Traditions,” Washington Post

Hooker being an Anglican theologian and my cited references being Episcopal, you choose to address it from a Lutheran view…

Ever heard of “moving the goal posts”?

I’ll take that as a roundabout way of finally agreeing that there are Protestant groups with a very Catholic view of apostolic succession.

 

[ltwin]

Vonsalza,

You said:

This separation might be clear in your evangelical mind, but it would appear that many protestant groups share many Catholic views on the priesthood. Anglicans, Lutherans and many others historically affirm apostolic succession. These groups are generally referred to as “Protestant”, as you might concede.

I said:

Historically (we’re not talking about the 19th century Anglo-Catholics), they have not done so in the way Catholics affirm it. Some Lutheran churches don’t even have bishops.

And went on to cite Luther in this post.

Then you said:

Quintessential example of Protestant chaos, imo.

But to the original point, if you’re alluding to the idea that some did/do not affirm apostolic succession, you’re incorrect.

Then I said:

As I said before, not in the way Catholics do. As can be seen by how unnecessary it is for some Lutherans to even concern themselves about. Even** Luther** didn’t think it was indispensably necessary as can be seen from the passage I quoted.

Then you said:

And as I’ve said before, yes they do.

Eventually, we get to you saying this:

The Episcopal Church also publishes this is their glossary for the term:
The belief that bishops are the successors to the apostles and that episcopal authority is derived from the apostles by an unbroken succession in the ministry. This authority is specifically derived through the laying on of hands for the ordination of bishops in lineal sequence from the apostles, through their performing the ministry of the apostles, and through their succession in episcopal sees traced back to the apostles.

Naturally, they also include this:
The apostolic succession is said to be a “sign, though not a guarantee” of the church’s basic continuity with the apostles and their time. The meaning of the apostolic succession relative to the historic episcopate has been a significant issue in Lutheran-Episcopal dialogues.

They, like Hooker, obviously have to explain why they’re not Catholic if they believe in succession.

But a challenge:

Can you identify any living bishop in those groups that were not either ordained by another bishop or confirmed by another bishop (as Peter confirmed Paul)?

I don’t think so. It’s an exception that has no example. It exists only to serve as prima facie justification for their separations.

When I provide you with evidence from “those groups”, you write this:

Hooker being an Anglican theologian and my cited references being Episcopal, you choose to address it from a Lutheran view…

Ever heard of “moving the goal posts”?

Really??? You specifically offered Lutherans, along with Anglicans, as a group that proved I didn’t know what I was talking about and now you quibble over whether my evidence meets your criteria?

 

[ltwin]

I’ll take that as a roundabout way of finally agreeing that there are Protestant groups with a very Catholic view of apostolic succession.

If you mean that there are Anglicans today who, being influenced by Tractarianism, insist on the necessity of an historic episcopate, you will get no argument from me. Yet, these are most likely the same Anglicans who insist they aren’t Protestant at all and never were.

Yet, historically this was not the case. Even today, the notion that Apostolic Succession is necessary (not just preferable) is not universally held in the Anglican Communion. As Mark Chapman makes clear, this was a change that gained steam in the 1880s:

This insistence might have come as a surprise to many earlier Anglican authors. Even in 1888, there were alternative views on offer. Following others who saw church order as an ‘indifferent’ matter, J. B. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham, claimed that church orders were ‘aids and expedients’ which ‘a Christian could not afford to hold lightly or to neglect. But they were no part of the essence of God’s message to man in the Gospel.’ Similarly, F. D. Maurice, whose understanding of the church resembles the Lambeth Quadrilateral, did not regard bishops as essential for the church. During the debates over the Anglo-Prussian Jerusalem Bishopric, he wrote: ‘Shall I require the German, or the Helvetian, or the Dutchman to say, I have had no church, not even the dream of one, I come to ask one from you? God forbid.’

The unequivocal insistence on bishops at Lambeth 1888 universalized one particular aspect of the 1662 Act of Uniformity across a communion where relations with non-episcopal churches were often of vital missionary importance. Historically, the Church of England had insisted on episcopacy within its own domains but had not sought to impose it on those who had lost it for one reason or another. As Archbishop William Wake (1657–1737) wrote to a French Catholic priest, who had been concerned that Archbishop Grindal had granted a licence to a presbyterian minister: **‘I should be unwilling to affirm that where the ministry is not episcopal, there is no church, nor any true administration of the sacraments.’ **After 1888, such elasticity over ministry was no longer possible: this would prove deeply divisive through the 20th century.

Chapman, Mark. Anglicanism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (pp. 121-122). OUP Oxford.

So, as I said at the outset, there is a general Protestant teaching on the priesthood of all believers. Related to this is the belief that Apostolic Succession is not an indispensable requirement of the church. This is what Anglicans have taught as well, even though today many place greater importance on Apostolic Succession. This has corresponded to the movement of Anglicans away from identifying as Protestant.

So, as many Anglicans have ceased to identify as Protestants, they have not unsurprisingly ceased to believe in common Protestant beliefs concerning Apostolic Succession. No surprise there.

 

[De_Maria]

Neither in terms of being a Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Anglican. Yet, I can always learn something from them and agree with them where they align with Scripture.

But they don’t align with Scripture.

The reason I cited them was not to suggest that I agreed 100 percent with each of their theories

That’s all that you have, all of you who don’t agree with the Catholic Church, merely have theories.

but to show that while supporting Apostolic Succession they also agreed with other Protestants (namely Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals and Methodists) that the historic episcopate, while perhaps preferable, is not indispensable to the nature of ordained ministry and leadership in the church, which became a contested point in this thread.

Says who? Jesus Christ didn’t establish many Churches. Only one. And that Church established the rest of the Episcopates. All of them under one Shepherd. The one appointed by Jesus Christ. You claim he’s not indispensable because you rebel against the authority of Christ.

There’s one Christ. He is the Truth. And He passed on the Truth to His One Church. And that one Church has continued to Teach the Truth, to this day.

 

[ltwin]

You claim he’s not indispensable because you rebel against the authority of Christ.

I did not say that Christ was not indispensable. Just to clarify. If you can convince me from Scripture that the Catholic concept of Apostolic Succession is instituted by Christ, then I will be believe it. Otherwise, I do not. It is simple as that. You may believe I am in rebellion, but I remain faithful to the gospel of Christ that I received and that has been revealed in Scripture.

Good night.

 

[De_Maria]

I did not say that Christ was not indispensable. Just to clarify. If you can convince me from Scripture that the Catholic concept of Apostolic Succession is instituted by Christ, then I will be believe it. Otherwise, I do not. It is simple as that. You may believe I am in rebellion, but I remain faithful to the gospel of Christ that I received and that has been revealed in Scripture.

Jesus Christ established one Church (Matt 16:18).

Appointed a Leader (John 21:17) in His Church.

Appointed a Board of Directors (Luke 6:13) under that Leader.

Appointed officials throughout His Church (1 Corinthians 12:28-29).

And declared this an ongoing concern until the end of the world (Matt 28:20).

The Church is the Body of Christ.

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: ….

It is Christ’s Corporation. Corporation comes from the word, “body”. Corpus.

And a body is nothing if not organized. That is why, human beings are “organisms.” Because God has organized our bodies (Rom 12:5-7).

It’s an earthly institution that has been given heavenly authority:

1 Corinthians 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And proclaims the Word of God:

Ephesians 3:10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

And we are bound to obey on penalty of excommunication:

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

The Catholic Church is the voice of Christ on this earth:

2 Corinthians 5:20

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Good night.

Good night.

 

[Vonsalza]

Irwin,

For sake of space, I’m not going to cut and paste all that. My apologies.

Yes. The conversation evolved toward those descended from the English Reformation. While I have no doubt your references are genuine, my challenge still stands as it pertains to Hooker and his Anglican/Episcopal lineage. .

(despite some vigorous goal-post shifting on your part).

Then you raise the objection that the portion of that greater communion that affirms a very Catholic-style understanding of apostolic succession somehow doesn’t count because they’re so new.

Number one, you’re woefully, woefully inaccurate about succession being novel to the CoE and it’s “children”. Number two, image how a Catholic feels when a Protestant tells them that a particular group/view is hard to accept because the Protestant finds it so novel.

Like, seriously bro???

Again you concede, if not completely correctly, that a Protestant group exists that affirms apostolic succession. That’s really the end if the discussion.

 

[ltwin]

Yes. The conversation evolved toward those descended from the English Reformation. While I have no doubt your references are genuine, my challenge still stands as it pertains to Hooker and his Anglican/Episcopal lineage. .

First, I never said the Anglicans lacked Apostolic Succession, so not sure why its my responsibility to prove that. (But if you want a magisterial answer try Apostolicae Curae) What I said was that they have not affirmed it in the way Catholics have. I proved that.

Then you raise the objection that the portion of that greater communion that affirms a very Catholic-style understanding of apostolic succession somehow doesn’t count because they’re so new.

What I said was that Anglo-Catholics do not consider themselves Protestants and have rejected that part of their Anglican heritage, so it only makes sense that they would have embraced a Catholic viewpoint and left a Protestant viewpoint behind.

I didn’t say they didn’t count. I just said their viewpoint is not very Protestant, and I think everyone agrees with that except people who are trying to deny that there is such a thing as a Protestant viewpoint on this subject.

Number one, you’re woefully, woefully inaccurate about succession being novel to the CoE and it’s “children”.

Number 1, I never denied the Anglicans their belief in Apostolic Succession. I said repeatedly that they have such a belief, albeit it differs from the Catholics (and I have exhaustively shown how it differs). I made the same point about Lutherans when you brought them up but now you tell me they aren’t part of the discussion anymore, so I guess we can’t consider them.

The issue you are having trouble with is that I refuse to accept your viewpoint that the existence of Anglican Apostolic Succession means Anglicans disagree with other Protestants on the universal priesthood. You think that because Anglicans have bishops they must disagree with Baptists and other Protestants on the universal priesthood. I disagreed and here we are.

That has always been what the discussion has been about for me.

Number two, image how a Catholic feels when a Protestant tells them that a particular group/view is hard to accept because the Protestant finds it so novel.

What are you talking about? I hurt your feelings because I agreed with the Anglo-Catholics that they aren’t very Protestant-like anymore? I think to tell an Anglo-Catholic that they are “not Protestant” is the highest form of flattery to that particular church party.

 

[steve_b]

Well, there never was a such thing as “Protestant” unity, since there never was a "Protestant church ". So, yes, one has to refer to different traditions -]within the western Church/-], and how they view this.

A slight correction there Jon. Hope you don’t mind.

heresy is also a tradition.
catholic.com/tract/the-great-heresies

 

[steve_b]

I don’t think so, but you would think so from some Catholics. Here, for example, from their catechism:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

As you point out quoting this from the CCC (emphasis mine).

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

What that highlight means, it is not okay to remain divided from the Catholic Church. ***“The call” ***is to leave division and unite to the Catholic Church.

 

[Nicea325]

I did not say that Christ was not indispensable. Just to clarify.** If you can convince me from Scripture **that the Catholic concept of Apostolic Succession is instituted by Christ, then I will be believe it. Otherwise, I do not. It is simple as that. You may believe I am in rebellion, but I remain faithful to the gospel of Christ that I received and that has been revealed in Scripture.

Good night.

After you convince me from Scripture where it states Scripture is the only-standard of measurement?

 

[Nicea325]

To Nicea325, since you seem to think I imagining things . . . Here is Luther’s thoughts on the priesthood of all believers. So, now I’ve shown you a Presbyterian source and a Lutheran source. What next? Anglican?

And thousands of denominations is an imagination or a reality? Non-Catholics are always asking Catholics: Show me from Scripture

Kindly show me from Scripture the concept of denominations all sharing the “basic” essentials?

 

[De_Maria]

And thousands of denominations is an imagination or a reality? Non-Catholics are always asking Catholics: Show me from Scripture

Kindly show me from Scripture the concept of denominations all sharing the basic" essentials?

Can they provide a list of the basic essentials upon which they agree, from Scripture or otherwise?

 

[Nicea325]

Can they provide a list of the basic essentials upon which they agree, from Scripture or otherwise?

Nope! Because there is no such thing. I have been asking for over 15 years and I have yet to read it from any non-Catholic source.

My question: What constitutes “basic” ?

 

[Vonsalza]

As there are some that deny the trinity and even some aspects of Christ’s divinity, that’s quite the pressing question.

The notion that there could be a binding answer of any sort for all Protestantism is quite the myth; as I learned in my last days as an adherent.

 

[Nicea325]

As there are some that deny the trinity and even some aspects of Christ’s divinity, that’s quite the pressing question.

The notion that there could be a binding answer of any sort for all Protestantism is quite the myth; as I learned in my last days as an adherent.

And you of all people would know as a former Protestant. I have a friend who tells me he is a Protestant apologist for the Protestant church?

Come again? “The” Protestant church? More like “a” Protestant church.

 

[Vonsalza]

And you of all people would know as a former Protestant. I have a friend who tells me he is a Protestant apologist for the Protestant church?

Come again? “The” Protestant church? More like “a” Protestant church.

If your friend adheres to a form of Protestantism with a founding date starting with 18-- or 19-- (like most of them) that claims to represent a Church with a founding date of approximately 30 AD, then he has to be an apologist by default unless he avoids talking to “Christians” (depending on how he feels about their legitimacy) outside of his congregation.

Unsurprisingly, many do avoid this sort of social activity. “Why am I a Baptist instead of a Methodist like the guys across the street?” was a question I asked myself when I was a teenager that ultimately led me to Rome. Took a few years.

 

[Nicea325]

If your friend adheres to a form of Protestantism with a founding date starting with 18-- or 19-- (like most of them) that claims to represent a Church with a founding date of approximately 30 AD, then he has to be an apologist by default unless he avoids talking to “Christians” (depending on how he feels about their legitimacy) outside of his congregation.

Unsurprisingly, many do avoid this sort of social activity. “Why am I a Baptist instead of a Methodist like the guys across the street?” was a question I asked myself when I was a teenager that ultimately led me to Rome. Took a few years.

I have met Baptists who have told me the Baptist church dates back to Christ?