Protestants: Why Abandon Apostolic Succession?

[Metaron]

The tip of the pyramid in the Anglican spectrum. Sort of an Anglo-Catholic on steroids. Rare, but they exist.

GKC

Do they believe in Papal Infallibility…?

 

[GKC]

Do they believe in Papal Infallibility…?

Some do (you know Anglicans).

Basically, they tend to view Anglican orders as valid, but unnecessary. They have one foot in the Tiber, and are uncertain why they are still dry.

GKC

 

[reform3703]

Actually, no, the souls in Purgatory were already bound for Heaven. More, they were paying to have their time lessened in Purgatory.QUOTE]

And so the issue of Purgatory comes up! I should have known. Anyway, if you can provide some justification for it, please let me know. Until then, I refuse to believe it.

“But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” --Romans 6:22-23

“But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!” --Romans 5:15

“No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” --Acts 15:11

“Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.” --Romans 4:16

“And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened,” --Romans 11:5-7

“And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.”
–Ephesians 2:6-9

“But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.” --Ephesians 2:4-5

“So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” --2 Timothy 1:8-10

" ‘Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.’ "
– Matthew 23:13

I would like to see a biblical reference for purgatory. I seem to have found plenty against it, so surely you can produce something for it. Don’t bother with Maccabees. As far as I’m concerned, it’s not a part of the true Bible. Good luck. You will need it. We can never be cleansed of all our sins. The only way to be saved it through grace from Jesus Christ. I have two other quotes for you to take a good look at:

"Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more. And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin." --Hebrews 10:17b-18

"Since therefore brethren we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated through the veil that is His flesh, we have a great priest over the house of God. Let us draw near with sincere heart and full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful." --Hebrews 10:19-23

 

[Metaron]

I have no need to defend it. It is evinced in Colossians, and Maccabees, and in the Parable of the Rich Man and St.Lazarus. And also, the Church has settled this dispute. I need not defend it.

You’re the one attacking it, so you have to convince me otherwise.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is fascinating. Did the Reformers not know about the Orthodox?

Did the Reformers believe that the Orthodox fell into apostacy also?

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.

Since the Orthodox view it the same way, do Protestants believe it is not valid for them either? And, since the Orthodox have never practiced the things that made the reformers think change was needed, in what way are they apostacised?

And my last question is, do Protestants not see the Apostolic succession when they read those passages? Do they think it was NEVER valid? When did the RCC apostacize?

 

[Namesake]

This is fascinating. Did the Reformers not know about the Orthodox?

Did the Reformers believe that the Orthodox fell into apostacy also?

Since the Orthodox view it the same way, do Protestants believe it is not valid for them either? And, since the Orthodox have never practiced the things that made the reformers think change was needed, in what way are they apostacised?

And my last question is, do Protestants not see the Apostolic succession when they read those passages? Do they think it was NEVER valid? When did the RCC apostacize?

I don’t know about Orthodox.

I don’t believe any Protestants accept the RCC notion of apostolic succession as far as I know. If apostolic succession means accepting Peter as the first pope, then no, it was never valid.

The RCC entered into apostasy very early, like almost immediately. Certainly by the 4th century.

 

[Metaron]

I don’t know about Orthodox.

They believe in Apostolci Succession too.

I don’t believe any Protestants accept the RCC notion of apostolic succession as far as I know. If apostolic succession means accepting Peter as the first pope, then no, it was never valid.

Apostolic Succession has nothing to do with the Pope. It is transmitting Autthority from bishop to bishop from the Apostles. Didn’t you read the numerous Patristic quotes in the OP?

The RCC entered into apostasy very early, like almost immediately. Certainly by the 4th century.

Apostolic Succession was around loooog before then, my friend. Read the dates on the quotes in the OP.

 

[Namesake]

They believe in Apostolci Succession too.

Apostolic Succession has nothing to do with the Pope. It is transmitting Autthority from bishop to bishop from the Apostles. Didn’t you read the numerous Patristic quotes in the OP?

Apostolic Succession was around loooog before then, my friend. Read the dates on the quotes in the OP.

I did not read all of the OP…far too long.

I thought the RCC concept of apostolic succession included the pope from Peter to Benedict XVI. That Peter was the Bishop of Rome and the office was successive from him to the next pope and so on. Is that not correct?

I didn’t say and I didn’t intend to even suggest that apostolic succession began in the 4th century. I suppose that one could say that the RCC was fully apostate by the 4th century but it could be much earlier or later depending on point of view. It seems to me that there can be no one certain point in time when it would be generally agreed by Protestants that the RCC was apostate.

BTW, I find the minutia of this sort of legalistic dueling to be quite dry and boring. In fact I assert that the main interesting and meaningful points get buried in the arcane minutia, much to our mutual loss.

 

[Metaron]

I did not read all of the OP…far too long.

I thought the RCC concept of apostolic succession included the pope from Peter to Benedict XVI. That Peter was the Bishop of Rome and the office was successive from him to the next pope and so on. Is that not correct?

No, that’s called Petrine Supremacy.

All the ancient Churches believe in Apostolic Succession, just not Petrine Supremacy.

I didn’t say and I didn’t intend to even suggest that apostolic succession began in the 4th century. I suppose that one could say that the RCC was fully apostate by the 4th century but it could be much earlier or later depending on point of view. It seems to me that there can be no one certain point in time when it would be generally agreed by Protestants that the RCC was apostate.

If Apostolic Succession was a non-aposticized teaching, shouldn’t it be held by all?

BTW, I find the minutia of this sort of legalistic dueling to be quite dry and boring. In fact I assert that the main interesting and meaningful points get buried in the arcane minutia, much to our mutual loss.

And what minutia are you referring to? I’m not discussing Petrine Supremacy here; only Apostolic Succession.

 

[Namesake]

No, that’s called Petrine Supremacy.

All the ancient Churches believe in Apostolic Succession, just not Petrine Supremacy.

OK, that’s true, but Peter was supposedly Bishop of Rome and an apostle therefore his successors and the successors of all the apostles are the basis of the notion of apostolic succession.

You see, in some Protestant denominations elements of apostolic succession are accepted. But nothing about Peter being the foundation of the church or the pope. United Methodists believe in some form of apostolic succession but not in the way the RCC teaches. It’s more of a general Presbyterate which as I understand it is more like a theological concept instead of the direct succession that RCCs believe.

If Apostolic Succession was a non-aposticized teaching, shouldn’t it be held by all?

If it was not apostasy then of course.

And what minutia are you referring to? I’m not discussing Petrine Supremacy here; only Apostolic Succession.

The minutia of dates certain that the RCC became apostate. The minutia of definitions that split hairs so finely one loses the important ideas.

Catholics, and it appears that Orthodox and such really enjoy the legalisms.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Your understanding of you own family history is sorely lacking. Welcome to the forum! I hope you stay long enough to learn the truth.

What do you know about Luther’s spirtual development? What happened to him before the Theses?

 

[guanophore]

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.

Facts are worthless because they are “legalistic”?

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.

I am glad you are here on the forum, and I hope you can stay long enough to straighten out some of your misunderstandings about your own family history. Formal confession began at the baptism of John. Jesus commissioned the Apostles to forgive sins. Why wouldn’t a person confess to the person who had been empowered with God’s forgiveness?

Matt 3:4-6
5 Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan, 6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

We can see the use of confession in the NT and in the early Fathers.

Acts 19:17-18
18 Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices.

FYI, The Apostolic faiths are not based on the bible. There was no time when they could “depart” from biblical teaching, since the teaching does not originate from there.

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.

Well, please start at the beginning and we can work forward from there. Maybe start with why you think there was no formal confession?

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.

Where are you getting this skewed perspective of history?

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.

After we work on forma confession (which Luther continued, BTW), perhaps we can talk about why Jesus gave Simon a new name?

The RCC entered into apostasy very early, like almost immediately. Certainly by the 4th century.

I find this statement fascinating. Especially since the Roman Rite did not exist as a separat entity until after that time. It is also amazing that this supposed apostasy occurrred prior to the council of Nicea, which most Protestants accept.

 

[guanophore]

I did not read all of the OP…far too long.

What is your purpose in participating on this thread?

I thought the RCC concept of apostolic succession included the pope from Peter to Benedict XVI. That Peter was the Bishop of Rome and the office was successive from him to the next pope and so on. Is that not correct?

This is correct, but the concept is much larger than this. Apparently you are not interested in reading the postings from the early fathers?

I didn't say and I didn't intend to even suggest that apostolic succession began in the 4th century.

Well, this is a relief. I was beginning to think you were pulling all of your history out of some hole where the sun don’t shine.

One could say that the RCC was fully apostate by the fourth century, but since the RCC did not exist at such a time, that would be difficult to defend. It would be, on the contrary, balderdash! There is certainly no point at which Protestants agree, either.

Indeed, you have purported a significant amount of arcane minutia that is baseless. I am not bored, but amazed by it.

 

[guanophore]

OK, that’s true, but Peter was supposedly Bishop of Rome and an apostle therefore his successors and the successors of all the apostles are the basis of the notion of apostolic succession.

No, the basis for the notion of Apostolic Succession is the Teaching of Jesus Christ. He set it up that way, Peter did not!

You see, in some Protestant denominations elements of apostolic succession are accepted. But nothing about Peter being the foundation of the church or the pope.

I don’t know what kind of Protestant sect you represent,but I can assure you that there are a majority of Protestants who are “Bible Christians”, and therefore, are in agreement with the Apostolic Churches that the the foundation of the Church are the Apostles an Prophets, Jesus Christ being the cornerstone.

United Methodists believe in some form of apostolic succession but not in the way the RCC teaches.

I am getting the impression that you really have not much of a clue what the RCC teaches.

It’s more of a general Presbyterate which as I understand it is more like a theological concept instead of the direct succession that RCCs believe.

What does that mean, a “general presbyterate”? How is it more like a “theological concept” than the direct succession?

If it was not apostasy then of course.

The minutia of dates certain that the RCC became apostate. The minutia of definitions that split hairs so finely one loses the important ideas.

Catholics, and it appears that Orthodox and such really enjoy the legalisms.

 

[guanophore]

If it was not apostasy then of course.

If it is a foundation of the christian faith (supposing that it is not apostasy), then would it not be important to determine if it is valid or not?

The minutia of dates certain that the RCC became apostate. The minutia of definitions that split hairs so finely one loses the important ideas.

The main idea of Jesus is unity. For that reason, it seems quite essential that we determine what prevents our unity, and correct it, would you not agree?

Catholics, and it appears that Orthodox and such really enjoy the legalisms.

Unity is based upon Truth. When we are all clinging to Truth, we will automatically be in union with one another. For this reason, it seems essential to determine which are the Truths that came to us from Jesus.

 

[Metaron]

OK, that’s true, but Peter was supposedly Bishop of Rome and an apostle therefore his successors and the successors of all the apostles are the basis of the notion of apostolic succession.

It was well-know to the Church Fathers that Peter was the Bishop of Rome. However, this does not mean that he is the Universal Bishop (Pope). Certain key Biblical passages seem to support this though. We aren’t dealing with this here, though.

You see, in some Protestant denominations elements of apostolic succession are accepted. But nothing about Peter being the foundation of the church or the pope.

This is how the ancient non-Roman anciet Churches view it; they do not recognize the Bishop of Rome as Universal Bishop, just first among equals.

United Methodists believe in some form of apostolic succession but not in the way the RCC teaches. It’s more of a general Presbyterate which as I understand it is more like a theological concept instead of the direct succession that RCCs believe.

This is true. they believe in the historic Episcopal form of Church governance, but reject the requirement of having Apostolic lineage. (Although there are high-church Methodists which claim Wesley had been ordained a bishop by an eastern Bishop “Erasmus”. This isn’t widely accepted though.

If it was not apostasy then of course.

Then what do you think of the patristic quotes in the OP?

The minutia of dates certain that the RCC became apostate. The minutia of definitions that split hairs so finely one loses the important ideas.

Catholics, and it appears that Orthodox and such really enjoy the legalisms.

No, we just like Protestants to back up their claims when they make arbitrary statements. (No offence, but it seems that some Protestants are ignorant of Church history. Not you, of course.)

 

[Metaron]

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.

Sola Scriptura was never believed by the Church. Why? Because for 300 years they didn’t have the New Testament, that’s why! The Church had to state what was Scripture (Synod of Carthage, Coucil of Trent). Also, the Trinity is not explicitly stated in Scripture, so the Church defined It (Not the Bible.) So pop goes Sola Scriptura.

As for confession, well… “Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted of them. Whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” Jesus said it-- not me.

 

[reform3703]

I have no need to defend it. It is evinced in Colossians, and Maccabees, and in the Parable of the Rich Man and St.Lazarus. And also, the Church has settled this dispute. I need not defend it.

You’re the one attacking it, so you have to convince me otherwise.

First of all, the Bible does not mention Purgatory ANYWHERE. If you believe it does, please show me where. Second, Maccabees, according to both Protestants and Jews, is not a part of the Old Testament. Third, I believe I listed at lesat one verse from Colossians which attacked purgatory. Fourth, you might want to look at that parable again. It makes reference to Hell, not prggatory. If God has wiped away all of our sins and made us “white as snow,” then how can we be cleansed of sins which we no longer have. For those who don’t repent, there is Hell. It is very clear-cut. Fifth, the Church has done no such thing. They fail to give any Biblical reference for Purgatory and acknowledge that when we repent, our sins are absolved. So, I think you do need to defend your idea. I hate to break it to you, but the Church is not perfect, not infalible.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

First of all, the Bible does not mention Purgatory ANYWHERE. If you believe it does, please show me where. Second, Maccabees, according to both Protestants and Jews, is not a part of the Old Testament. Third, I believe I listed at lesat one verse from Colossians which attacked purgatory. Fourth, you might want to look at that parable again. It makes reference to Hell, not prggatory. If God has wiped away all of our sins and made us “white as snow,” then how can we be cleansed of sins which we no longer have. For those who don’t repent, there is Hell. It is very clear-cut. Fifth, the Church has done no such thing. They fail to give any Biblical reference for Purgatory and acknowledge that when we repent, our sins are absolved. So, I think you do need to defend your idea. I hate to break it to you, but the Church is not perfect, not infalible.

Hey reform, I am your huckleberry, want to learn about purgatory?

 

[Nauticus28]

I probably shouldn’t reply, seeing as I am unlikely to convince anyone here that I am right; and honestly I have found most of the arguments I have read to be lacking, so I probably won’t get a reply that can convince me that I am wrong. But putting my own arrogance and pragmatism aside, this is my take on the issue. Ever play the game “telephone?” You know, the one where you stand in a line and someone whispers a word or a phrase into the ear of the person at the front of the line; then at the end of the line you find out that bumble bee turned into New York City. Well, the same can be said of a lesson that is passed down through 200 and some odd popes. Sure, at first the teaching is spot on; but then as time goes on and each person perceives and teaches the lesson differently it changes. Then at the end we find out that Jesus turns into Mary, and Heaven turns into hell. Or insert whatever words you like; the only condition is that the word at the end will not be the same as the word at the beginning. That is why we have scripture, and why oral tradition became written; because we recognized that for consistency we couldn’t rely on verbal communication for everything anymore. Apostolic succession only works as long as the lessons that are taught remain constant and none are left out or added. And While I believe in the infallibility of God, I have a much harder time with people; especially when even the Apostle Peter consistently got it wrong and had to be corrected by Christ. My money is on the accuracy of the scriptures.