Protestants: Why Abandon Apostolic Succession?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Metaron
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some Protestant churches (Anglican, possibly Lutheran?) have apostolic succession. However, because the Catholic Church didn’t authorize it, it isn’t recognized by them.

Anglicans are Protestant.
 
HannahLisa said:
Some Protestant churches (Anglican, possibly Lutheran?) have apostolic succession. However, because the Catholic Church didn’t authorize it, it isn’t recognized by them.

Anglicans are Protestant.
Click to expand...
No, Anglicans are Anglican, so long as they hold the apostolic faith, and do not ordain women “bishops” (thus disrupting the line of succession).

The Catholic Church didn’t authorize the Old Catholic ordinations, but they are viewed as valid (same with the Orthodox).

The Anglicans with Apostolic faith and succession are not Protestant, The liberal, women-ordaining, gay bishop-consecrating ones are.

And the Swedish Lutherans have maintained Apostolic Succession, as well as the Anglo-Lutherans,
 
Metaron said:
No, Anglicans are Anglican, so long as they hold the apostolic faith, and do not ordain women “bishops” (thus disrupting the line of succession).

The Catholic Church didn’t authorize the Old Catholic ordinations, but they are viewed as valid (same with the Orthodox).

The Anglicans with Apostolic faith and succession are not Protestant, The liberal, women-ordaining, gay bishop-consecrating ones are.

And the Swedish Lutherans have maintained Apostolic Succession, as well as the Anglo-Lutherans,
Click to expand...
D’accord.

And good luck on your journey.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
Metaron said:
No, Anglicans are Anglican, so long as they hold the apostolic faith, and do not ordain women “bishops” (thus disrupting the line of succession).

The Catholic Church didn’t authorize the Old Catholic ordinations, but they are viewed as valid (same with the Orthodox).

The Anglicans with Apostolic faith and succession are not Protestant, The liberal, women-ordaining, gay bishop-consecrating ones are.

And the Swedish Lutherans have maintained Apostolic Succession, as well as the Anglo-Lutherans,
Click to expand...
My definition of Protestant is someone/a church who refutes the authority of the Pope and is not Orthodox. This makes Anglicans Protestant. It also makes Episcopalians Protestant. The Anglican church was started because Henry VIII wanted a divorce and so rejected the authority of the Pope. Unless Anglicans recognize and are under the authority of the Pope, I do not see how they are not Protestant.

Either way, I’m pretty sure they all have apostolic succession and as far as I know none of it is recognized by the Catholic Church. Please correct me if I’m wrong! 🙂

I grew up in a conservative Episcopalian/Anglican church.
 
HannahLisa said:
My definition of Protestant is someone/a church who refutes the authority of the Pope and is not Orthodox.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this is a bit arbitrary, especially on part of the Orthodox.

My definition of Protestant is:

“A community which is directly or indirectly related to to the “Reformation” and lacks Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession.”

Most ecclesial historians note several major branches of Christianity:

Roman Catholicism
Eastern Orthodoxy
Nestorianism (not really nestorian, but so-called)
Anglicanism (destinct and separate from Protestantism)
Protestantism
Anabaptism (Sometimes named separately from Protestantism)
This makes Anglicans Protestant. It also makes Episcopalians Protestant. The Anglican church was started because Henry VIII wanted a divorce and so rejected the authority of the Pope. Unless Anglicans recognize and are under the authority of the Pope, I do not see how they are not Protestant.
Click to expand...
You can’t arbitrarily make an exception for Orthodoxy without considering Anglicans on the same or a similar level, even if there Apostolic Succession is polluted partially by women bishops.
Either way, I’m pretty sure they all have apostolic succession and as far as I know none of it is recognized by the Catholic Church. Please correct me if I’m wrong! 🙂
Click to expand...
They don’t recognize them, but the Vatican has not yet considered the fact that the Anglican clergy were re-ordered by Old Catholic bishops, which Rome does recognize.
 
It’s a real big mess IMO. If “validity” is determined by a line of bishop’s who say the right incantations just imagine how many different churches our Lord is present in.

Catholic
Orthodox
Assyrian (Nestorian)
Lutheran
Anglican
Old Catholic
sedevacantist chapels
etc
etc

and none of these groups are united but all share in the one body of Christ simply because the right guy says the right words. This seems highly unlikely to me.
 
I applaud those who keep Apostolic Succession and to those who lack it. Shame on you.
 
VARC said:
It’s a real big mess IMO. If “validity” is determined by a line of bishop’s who say the right incantations just imagine how many different churches our Lord is present in.

Catholic
Orthodox
Assyrian (Nestorian)
Lutheran
Anglican
Old Catholic
sedevacantist chapels
Click to expand...
Only Swedish Lutheran.

But then, VARC… does that mean… that only the Orthodox have a valid, true Eucharistic Presence of God?

(BTW, do they have Eucharistic Adoration?)
 
VARC said:
It’s a real big mess IMO. If “validity” is determined by a line of bishop’s who say the right incantations just imagine how many different churches our Lord is present in.

Catholic
Orthodox
Assyrian (Nestorian)
Lutheran
Anglican
Old Catholic
sedevacantist chapels
etc
etc

and none of these groups are united but all share in the one body of Christ simply because the right guy says the right words. This seems highly unlikely to me.
Click to expand...
With the exception of Lutherans, and (most) Anglicans, Rome finds it not only likely, but so. That’s what valid orders means.

And its form, matter, intent and minister, not incantations.

GKC
 
GKC said:
With the exception of Lutherans, and (most) Anglicans, Rome finds it not only likely, but so. That’s what valid orders means.

And its form, matter, intent and minister, not incantations.

GKC
Click to expand...
Actually the Swedish Lutherans and Anglo-Lutherans have maintained it. (And I wouldn’t say most Anglicans… I would say about 35% have invalid Orders.)
 
Metaron said:
Actually the Swedish Lutherans and Anglo-Lutherans have maintained it. (And I wouldn’t say most Anglicans… I would say about 35% have invalid Orders.)
Click to expand...
True,as to the Swedish Lutherans. I have no knowledge of the Anglo-Lutherans, but they sound like splendid folk, from their name.

GKC
 
Namesake said:
I suppose the quick answer is that lots of Protestants believe that the Catholic Church became apostate and therefore has no legitimate claim to the notion of apostolic succession.
Click to expand...
Basically, Martin Luther realized that, especially at the time of hir reformation, the Catholic church was screwed up. Even Catholics can’t deny this. Look at some of the things you were doing in the 16th century. You were trying to buy your way into heaven. Luther found only one copy of the Bible avainable and it was wrapped in chains. Can you honestly tell me that that is moral? The papacy authorized all of these things, so you can say that the papacy was to blame.
 
GKC said:
True,as to the Swedish Lutherans. I have no knowledge of the Anglo-Lutherans, but they sound like splendid folk, from their name.

GKC
Click to expand...
Indeed. Oddly, although they are not in Communion with Rome, they recognize Papal Infallibility (!)… I cannot really explain how that happened… 🤷
 
Metaron said:
Indeed. Oddly, although they are not in Communion with Rome, they recognize Papal Infallibility (!)… I cannot really explain how that happened… 🤷
Click to expand...
Have you ever run into an Anglo-Papalist?

GKC
 
reform3703 said:
Basically, Martin Luther realized that, especially at the time of hir reformation, the Catholic church was screwed up. Even Catholics can’t deny this. Look at some of the things you were doing in the 16th century. You were trying to buy your way into heaven.
Click to expand...
Actually, no, the souls in Purgatory were already bound for Heaven. More, they were paying to have their time lessened in Purgatory.
Luther found only one copy of the Bible avainable and it was wrapped in chains.
Click to expand...
Back then, printing Bibles was extremely expensive. Only the churches and the elite had them, since they were so expensive. also, they were often decked in silver or gold.

In order to prevent sacriligious theft, they were often chained to the altars of the churches.

Since the beginning of the Church, people didn’t have “personal” Bibles for there use, as before there was no printing press, and even when there was it was expensive.
 
VARC said:
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?
Click to expand...
Oh come on now. Of course I can provide dates, names, documentation. Most of which I find relatively worthless because it’s such a legalistic approach.

When ever the Catholic Church decided to fall away from Biblical truth. When ever the Church began teaching against Sola Scriptura. When ever it was that the Catholic Church began formal confession to a priest.

All sorts of ideas that Protestants believe are apostate and most happened very early. The slide into apostasy should be viewed as a continuum instead of a point in time. The only point in time was when Luther just couldn’t take it any longer. But the RCC had slipped of the tracks much earlier. Luther tried to help fix that but the Church was too interested in self preservation instead of reform.

Of course most of this is opinion. Catholics really believe that the Church is the one true church. Protestants refute that because we don’t buy into the foundation of the Church being Peter, in any way at all. Maybe when ever the Church decided that Peter was the Pope the apostasy began and got worse with all the major deviations from what Protestants believe is the truth of Christianity. Things like transubstantiation, papal authority and infallibility, purgatory, the differences in soteriology, and so on.
 
cascherman said:
So, you deny infallibility of the Pope and support infallibility of Luther?
u are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."
Click to expand...
I never said anything about the infallibility of Luther…geeesh! I can’t waste time on such vapid comments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top