Protestant church of Christ claims apostolic succession?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tmac1956
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Church of Christ (Disciples of Christ) is Protestant.
Church of Christ (A Capella), Christian Church/Independent Churches of Christ, Church of Christ (Non-Institutional) are not Protestant.

jonathon
The Church of Christ claims it is not Protestant, just as some of them claim apostolic succession. Just because they claim it, however, does not necessarily make their claims true. I could claim to be a distant relative of Pochahantus, but that doesn’t mean my claim has any basis in genetic reality.

“Protestant” has different meanings, perhaps, but the basic idea is any Christian church that does not recognize papal authority. The Church of Christ would fall under the category of “restorationist” – that is, leaders and members believe they are restoring a true living of Christianity. Like most other protestant denominations, they believe the scriptures – rather than tradition or ecclesiastical authority – are the sole resource for how to live a Christian life. Of course, without ecclesiastical authority or apostolic tradition, they have to rely on their own interpretations of the scriptures.

I can see why they don’t want to be considered “protestant” or even a Christian “denomination.” But by most definitions, the Church of Christ is a protestant denomination of Christianity.

Gertie
 
I’m a convert myself. One thing I found in the Catholic Church that I found (and find) nowhere else: there is NO objection that she cannot/will not overcome.
There is NO attack that she cannot/will not overcome.

She possesses and protects the fullness of the Christian faith because Christ entrusted it to her, and as he promised, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her.

Truly, it is the Church established by Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ himself. She alone has bedrock of the totality of truth and the answers that everyone else can only speculate upon and argue about.

May you soon partake fully of all that Our Lord has prepared for you!

You are in my prayers! :gopray2: :signofcross: :gopray2:
I say AMEN to that…and thank you:)
 
The apostolic succession was broken,because the Lutherans believed in a priesthood of the laity,and so laypersons began ordaining bishops and pastors.
We Catholics also believe in the common priesthood of the baptized. But the laity are not allowed to ordain. Only a bishop can do that.
 
I recently saw a protestant preacher (church of Christ) claim that their denomination is the only “true” apostolic church. He even had a timeline chart that he used during the talk. I was unaware of this claim. Is this true of all church of Christ ministers? Where can I get a copy of their timeline chart?
Thanks!
Couldn’t tell ya, but at least some of these Church of Christ folks will learn about apostolic succession and its importance.

And who knows. . . . . .
 
I don’t mean Lutherans, anthony, sorry. I know by Catholic teaching Luther was not a bishop, so he couldn’t ordain. I meant Anglicans. Anglican bishops who were previously Catholic bishops ordained other priests. Where did the apostolic succession break?
newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm
< It was this venerable ordination rite, as preserved in the English varieties of the Roman Pontifical, which was in use in the country when Henry VIII began his assaults on the ancient religion. He did not himself venture to touch it, but in the next reign it was set aside by Cranmer and his associates who, under the rule of Somerset and Northumberland, were engaged in remodelling the whole fabric of the Church of England to suit their extreme Protestant conceptions. These men pronounced the ancient forms to be utterly superstitious and requiring to be replaced by others more in conformity with the simplicity of the Gospel. Hence the origin of the Edwardine Ordinal, which, under the sanction of the Act of 1550, was drawn up by “six prelates and six other men of the realm learned in God’s law, by the King’s Majesty to be appointed and assigned”.

This new rite underwent some further changes two years later, and was thus brought into the form in which it remained till the year 1662, when it was somewhat improved by the addition of clauses defining the nature of the orders imparted…

…By this new Ordinal seven bishops and a number of inferior clergy were made during the last two years of Edward VI. On the accession of Mary in 1553 it was discarded, and the Pontifical resumed, but on the accession of Elizabeth in 1558 its use was restored, and has continued (with the addition of the defining clauses since 1662) down to the present day. The Anglican clergy are thus the creation of this Ordinal, and, primarily, the validity of their orders is dependent on its sufficiency — that is, on its sufficiency in its earlier form, for if that be wanting, the Apostolical succession must have lapsed long before 1662, and could not be resuscitated by the additions then made. It was on this consideration of the character of the Edwardine rite that the Holy See based its definitive decree of 1896…

…Apart from exceptional circumstances, such as arose in 1896, the Holy See does not indulge in purely theoretical pronouncements on questions like that of Anglican Orders, but limits its intervention to cases of practical difficulty that are brought before it — as when persons or classes of persons who wish to minister at the Church’s altars have undergone ceremonies of ordination outside its fold. And even in thus intervening the Holy See is chary of doctrinal decisions, but applies a common-sense rule that can give practical security. Where it judges that the previous orders were certainly valid it permits their use, supposing the candidate to be acceptable; where it judges the previous orders to be certainly invalid it disregards them altogether, and enjoins a re-ordination according to its own rite; where it judges that the validity of the previous orders is doubtful, even though the doubt be slight, it forbids their use until a conditional ceremony of re-ordination has first been undergone. >
 
I recently saw a protestant preacher (church of Christ) claim that their denomination is the only “true” apostolic church. He even had a timeline chart that he used during the talk. I was unaware of this claim. Is this true of all church of Christ ministers? Where can I get a copy of their timeline chart?
Thanks!
It seems to be a pattern for some Catholics to use one isolated happeneing and over blow it to try and blanket all Protestants. I sincerely hope that this is not merely another effort in doing precisely this.
 
It seems to be a pattern for some Catholics to use one isolated happeneing and over blow it to try and blanket all Protestants. I sincerely hope that this is not merely another effort in doing precisely this.
SIA:
This was not my intent. I am collecting data, charts, etc. on groups that claim this, which is precisely why I was asking if all church of Christ ministers believe in apostolic succession.

I am aware of one Baptist sect (for lack of a better word) that believes this. (I.e. Landmark Baptists) I was born and raised a Southern Baptist and never heard a word about this ridiculous claim. So, no – I do not think this to be a majority belief among protestants. It only takes one Western Civ. 101 class to recognize this as revisionist history. However, the more I look, the more I find fringe groups espousing apostolic succession. I only wish to see how they rationalize their claims.

Good question and may God bless,
tmac1956
 
I recently saw a protestant preacher (church of Christ) claim that their denomination is the only “true” apostolic church. He even had a timeline chart that he used during the talk. I was unaware of this claim. Is this true of all church of Christ ministers? Where can I get a copy of their timeline chart?
Thanks!
Tmac,

By timeline Chart, do you mean when the Protestant first opened its doors?

If so, timeline could be, yesterday, or 5 minutes ago, there is Protestant Church opening its doors practically daily and each with his “preacher” claiming that his church is the true apostolic church.

Search “Martin Luther”, “Calvin.”

Ufamtobie
 
I recently saw a protestant preacher (church of Christ) claim that their denomination is the only “true” apostolic church. He even had a timeline chart that he used during the talk. I was unaware of this claim. Is this true of all church of Christ ministers? Where can I get a copy of their timeline chart?
Thanks!
Thanks for the info, I didn’t realise Jesus picked two Rocks, this has shaken me, I’m up the creek without a paddle.

Oh well so I’ll lay in bed Sundays. 🤷
 
I recently saw a protestant preacher (church of Christ) claim that their denomination is the only “true” apostolic church. He even had a timeline chart that he used during the talk. I was unaware of this claim. Is this true of all church of Christ ministers? Where can I get a copy of their timeline chart?
Thanks!
His Church does not have bishops that can trace back their origins to the Apostles. The lack of priesthood and the Sacraments makes his claim false.
 
Tmac,

By timeline Chart, do you mean when the Protestant first opened its doors?

If so, timeline could be, yesterday, or 5 minutes ago, there is Protestant Church opening its doors practically daily and each with his “preacher” claiming that his church is the true apostolic church.

Search “Martin Luther”, “Calvin.”

Ufamtobie
Just more condescending remarks. The is becoming so redundant.
 
I am currently Church of Christ myself, but any timeline that says the Church of Christ existed before the early 1800s is made up of revisionist history. I would bet the preacher took “Trail of Blood” and said that the groups were Church of Christ instead of Landmark Baptist, as I have seen this tactic used before. “Trail of Blood” is written by a Landmark Baptist and it makes virtually the same revisionist claim about the history of its church.

You can shatter any revisionist timeline by reading “Baptist Successionism” by James Edward McGoldrick. This book examines the actual beliefs of many heretical groups that are often claimed by groups like the Landmark Baptists. While the book shows how these groups in no way resembled Landmark Baptists, I can assure you these groups have very little in common with the Church of Christ as well.

Another problem with saying the Church of Christ existed before the 1800s is that the whole movement was started as a way to restore Christianity to the Christianity of the New Testament. That ideal in and of itself implies that the movement was not a continuation of anything.

Finally, when I say Church of Christ, I am talking about the Stone Campbell movement and am in no way implying that the Church of Christ is the only Church. The historical argument has caused me to take a very close look at the Catholic Church and I have been considering conversion for over a year now.
I used to be a member of the church of Christ denomination. In a way, they have led me to the Catholic church even though they are vehemently against the RCC. They were the ones that taught me to read the Word of God constantly and to learn about the first century Christians. I did just that…Now I’m going to start RCIA in September and be confirmed Easter Sunday 2009 🙂
 
I used to be a member of the church of Christ denomination. In a way, they have led me to the Catholic church even though they are vehemently against the RCC. They were the ones that taught me to read the Word of God constantly and to learn about the first century Christians. I did just that…Now I’m going to start RCIA in September and be confirmed Easter Sunday 2009 🙂
:dancing: :clapping: :highprayer: :blessyou:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top