Protestants: Why Abandon Apostolic Succession?

[Metaron]

Church of Uganda

Awesome.

 

[Metaron]

I don’t know when it happened in the first instance, but it was apparent for all to see when Luther attempted to reform the Church and she would not be reformed. Certainly the Church came into apostasy earlier, even before 1054. It was a gradual process, but it probably began very early, like when the Creed was changed, or even before that.

Apostolic Succession was around loooooooong before that. So why did Protestants oust it?

 

[GKC]

Ah, you and I agree there I do believe.

So say we Anglicans, to be sure.

Though you can find other opinions.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Namesake]

Apostolic Succession was around loooooooong before that. So why did Protestants oust it?

You aren’t following along well. I was answering a different post. It was about when the RCC entered into apostasy.

 

[GKC]

Are you Anglican, SIA? I am (Part of the independent Anglican Church of the Chesapeake, with valid Apostolic Succession derived from Orthodox bishops and Independent Roman bishops).

This is not an Anglican jurisdiction with which I am familiar, by this name. Which Orthodox lines, and what is an independent Roman bishop?

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Metaron]

You aren’t following along well. I was answering a different post. It was about when the RCC entered into apostasy.

Ok… well… in your personal opinion, then… how can what the Church fathers said about Apostolic Succession be applied to Protestantism (And I am aware that the United Methodist Church may be considering re-ordaining its clergy with Apostolic bishops.)

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The reformation was all about the RCC. The RCC held the belief in apostolic succession. The reformers were forced to refute the RCC’s claim of apostolic succession and leave it behind because of the apostasy of the RCC.

Furthermore, most Protestants do not believe that Peter was the foundation of the church that Christ founded. Protestants don’t believe that basic Catholic idea. Protestants believe that Christ founded His church on the confession of Peter that Christ is the Son of the living God. To Protestants it’s all about Christ Jesus. It’s not about men.

Apostolic succession just isn’t valid in the way that Catholics view it, to Protestants that is.

Fascinating.
Why did the protestants chose to ‘refute’ some things but not others?
Further, why did some protestants protest OTHER protestants, thus ‘refuting’ them? When did “THEY” apostacize?

And by whose authority do they protest, anyway?

I could understand if ‘in the beginning’ there was no concept of apostolic succession, and then it was somehow ‘conjured up’ in the 1400s and since it would have been an INNOVATION, that people would ‘protest’ it.

But in fact we have writings going back to 100 AD which clearly indicate apostolic succession. IOW, apostolic succession was implicit in Christianity.

So who is doing the apostacizing here? The one holding the tenet of hundreds of years, Scripturally present and held since the time of Christ. . . or the one claiming that somehow, that didn’t matter because the “Rcc” had just been wrong (that means Christianity ITSELF had been wrong, ponder THAT for a moment) for 1500 years?

It was the reformers who ‘felt’ they had to refute any possible indication that THEY might be the ones making a totally new and innovative ‘doctrine of men’. To do so, going for the anticlerical position (after all, the clergy in the form of priests who claimed apostolic succession would have had legitimate authority–but if apostolic succession is jettisoned then the ‘reformers’ could–and DID–claim that not only were these priests no more ‘authoritative’ than they were, they were also guilty of ‘hoodwinking’ people by claiming a ‘false’ doctrine of apostolic succession, etc.) was the way to turn the tables and claim, “It’s not US who are introducing a new doctrine, it was those awful Catholics who misled you.”

If you examine the history of the Reformation you will find that the so-called charge of it being those awful Papists who had DISTORTED Christianity, and the noble Protestants who were only trying to ‘set things right’ was a LATE development.

The first rumblings of the reformation were squarely anticlerical in basis (trying to remove any 'authority) as well as for secular gain (the ‘wealth’ in the dissolution of the monasteries and lands in England, and later in Europe). Even Luther in his theses did not have much to say about Catholic DOCTRINE being ‘wrong’ but rather of certain INDIVIDUALS or of certain PRACTICES by said individuals being ‘wrong.’ It was to bolster himself and convince himself that he was ‘right’ that he later aligned with other Protestants and began to cherry pick the scriptures looking for ways or phrases to take out of context to support the rebellion.

Which is a major reason why you have so many DIFFERENT Protestant groups.

If they had stuck with anticlericalism, the split might have healed long ago as they realized their error, especially with the Church taking great pains in the Counter Reformation to purge itself. You know, if the ‘protestants’ had stuck with the church and tried to work from the INSIDE, by now we not only would have had a united Catholic Church, I think we would have healed the breach with our Orthodox brethren as well. It is sad to think that Martin Luther and John Knox and the Wesleys could all have been Catholic SAINTS if only they had listened to the Holy Spirit instead of succumbing to “the devil disguised as an angel of light.” Because what it came down to was lack of obedience and a spirit of pride that made them rebel.

 

[Metaron]

This is not an Anglican jurisdiction with which I am familiar, by this name. Which Orthodox lines, and what is an independent Roman bishop?

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

Um… the Bishop of our diocese is the Right Rev. Joel M. Johnson. It is a very small Anglican denomination with several churches, chapels, and missons. I know there are some of us in Texas, and although they go by a different name in Texas, they are the same denomination. Alot of breakaway Episcopal churches joined us in Texas.

My Bishops lines of succession are derived from an Independent Catholic Church in the Philippines (?) and I’m not sure where the Orthodox line is derived from. The Bishop has a paper on his wall in his office tracing his ordinations back to St.John and St.Peter.

 

[VARC]

I don’t know when it happened in the first instance, but it was apparent for all to see when Luther attempted to reform the Church and she would not be reformed. Certainly the Church came into apostasy earlier, even before 1054. It was a gradual process, but it probably began very early, like when the Creed was changed, or even before that.

You are “certain” that the catholic church apostatized but don’t have any idea exactly when or how or where or what they apostasized from. You’re the one making the accusation. What do you have to back up your assertion?

There are entire threads about who apostasized during the Great Schism. But both sides have names, dates, documentation, and facts to support their position (Although I believe the catholic side takes liberty with the facts). Do protestants have none of those things in their greivances with Rome and the Orthodox?

 

[GKC]

Um… the Bishop of our diocese is the Right Rev. Joel M. Johnson. It is a very small Anglican denomination with several churches, chapels, and missons. I know there are some of us in Texas, and although they go by a different name in Texas, they are the same denomination. Alot of breakaway Episcopal churches joined us in Texas.

My Bishops lines of succession are derived from an Independent Catholic Church in the Philippines (?) and I’m not sure where the Orthodox line is derived from. The Bishop has a paper on his wall in his office tracing his ordinations back to St.John and St.Peter.

That is possibly the Phillipine Independent Church. Those lines are part of the majority of the Continuing Anglican movement’s episcopacy, along with the PNCC/OC lines brought through +Chambers.

I’m always a little dubious about Orthodox lines and Anglicans, the Orthodox generally holding that all orders other than theirs are invalid (or empty), including RC and Anglican. But I’m always interested in learning more.

GKC

 

[Metaron]

You are “certain” that the catholic church apostatized but don’t have any idea exactly when or how or where or what they apostasized from. You’re the one making the accusation. What do you have to back up your assertion?

There are entire threads about who apostasized during the Great Schism. But both sides have names, dates, documentation, and facts to support their position (Although I believe the catholic side takes liberty with the facts)…

Just wondering, VARC, what do Orthodox think of Anglican Catholics (Continuing) with valid Apostolic Succession? And do Orthodox consider that Catholic have a valid Eucharist?

 

[VARC]

Just wondering, VARC, what do Orthodox think of Anglican Catholics (Continuing) with valid Apostolic Succession? And do Orthodox consider that Catholic have a valid Eucharist?

Orthodox do not view sacraments in the legalistic categories of “valid” and “invalid”. Although most orthodox believe that grace exists outside the church, most do not believe that the Mysteries (sacraments) exist outside the church. Wherever the eucahrist is, there is the Church.

The True Church is defined by the presence of the eucharist. Christ is under no obligation to descend to the altars of the heretics(no offence to anyone) just because the right incantations are spoken. Therefore if Roman Catholics and Anglicans are heretical, then by definition their is no eucharist in those churches.

 

[Metaron]

Orthodox do not view sacraments in the legalistic categories of “valid” and “invalid”. Although most orthodox believe that grace exists outside the church, most do not believe that the Mysteries (sacraments) exist outside the church. Wherever the eucahrist is, there is the Church.

The True Church is defined by the presence of the eucharist. Christ is under no obligation to descend to the altars of the heretics(no offence to anyone) just because the right incantations are spoken. Therefore if Roman Catholics and Anglicans are heretical, then by definition their is no eucharist in those churches.

That’s understandable, VARC. Thanks for your honest comment.

 

[cascherman]

I don’t know when it happened in the first instance, but it was apparent for all to see when Luther attempted to reform the Church and she would not be reformed. Certainly the Church came into apostasy earlier, even before 1054. It was a gradual process, but it probably began very early, like when the Creed was changed, or even before that.

So, you deny infallibility of the Pope and support infallibility of Luther?

Interesting how you give so much credit to Luther when he kicked out whole books of the Bible that you hold to be scripture, granted he brought them back. And you still consider him reasonable?

Luther finds a valid abuse in the Church (only by a few), confronts it, doesn’t get the response he finds is ideal and throws the baby out with the bathwater.

I’ll ask this and make sure you are certain in your answer. Are you sure Luther did the right thing in all of his ‘reforming’? I’m talking, by God, did he do the right thing?

Because we believe GOD said to Peter “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”

Christ BUILT his Church on the chair of Peter.

I hardly find a very limited number of bishops only in Germany charging for indulgences a Church-wide breach of TRUTH instigated by the chair of Peter.

but it was apparent for all to see when Luther attempted to reform the Church and she would not be reformed

You mean to Luther’s liking, it would not reform. Again, Luther is your authority? You trust everything he decided for the Church?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Protestants do not believe that what you call essential, is essential. You are seeing it through Catholic teaching. Protestants do not believe that Catholic teaching is correct in this matter. It is a non issue.

Protestants do not believe that the early church considered it essential at all, in the way RCCs believe.

As I wrote. When one creates ones own religion one must reject the one that already exists. As such one makes up authority on the run. They lack any legitimate authoriity but that cannot be admitted.

Someone contended that Anglicanism is not Protestant. Perhaps it was not strictly Protestant in the beginning but it certainly is now.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Are you Anglican, SIA? I am (Part of the independent Anglican Church of the Chesapeake, with valid Apostolic Succession derived from Orthodox bishops and Independent Roman bishops).

How can this be ligitimate?

CDL

 

[Metaron]

How can this be ligitimate?

CDL

Um, what? Ligitimate? What do you mean?

 

[Metaron]

Someone contended that Anglicanism is not Protestant. Perhaps it was not strictly Protestant in the beginning but it certainly is now.

CDL

No, only the liberalized, women-ordaining part is Protestant. There is a ligitimate part that still maintains Apostolic teaching and succession.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

How can this be ligitimate?

CDL

Sorry about the misspelling. How can an independent group with ordinations from other independent groups be legitimate?

CDL

 

[Metaron]

Sorry about the misspelling. How can an independent group with ordinations from other independent groups be legitimate?

CDL

Well, the Old Catholics have valid Apostolic lines, recognized by the Vatican. And we all know that the Vatican recognizes Orthodox lines.

It matters not much, anyway. Soon I will be either Orthodox or Roman Catholic… probably Roman Catholic, unless the Orthodox can convince me otherwise.

I realize now that I have to join one of those venerable ancient Churches.