G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Well from a Catholic angle the “fullest” sense of apostolic succession is union with the Chair of Peter. That’s the only full sense from CC point of view. Of course the Orthodox see it the other way around.
- Status
J
joe370
Guest
Jon, I didn’t say that, simply because that is irrelevant to the OP.
I never mentioned the word schism, and I said that I believe in the AS of the EOC.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
But it’s perfectly fine to say that; that is the position of the Catholic Church—the Orthodox are in schism.
J
joe370
Guest
Oops…And when I say non-Catholics, I am referring to Protestants.Most EOC Christians rightfully see the EOC as Catholic, as well…
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
But a Catholic shouldn’t see the Orthodox as catholic. They are schismatic so not part of the universal church per se. They view us the same way. too bad it has to be this way 
But we have a more uplifting view of them than the reverse. At least we declare they can convey graces with their valid sacraments. They don’t even know if we can convey squat. But we both agree the other side is in schism.
But we have a more uplifting view of them than the reverse. At least we declare they can convey graces with their valid sacraments. They don’t even know if we can convey squat. But we both agree the other side is in schism.
J
joe370
Guest
Sadly Scott, I agree. However, I did not know, with certainty, that the EOC did not recognize the Sacraments of the CC as being valid?But a Catholic shouldn’t see the Orthodox as catholic. They are schismatic so not part of the universal church per se. They view us the same way. too bad it has to be this way
Both the EOC (excluding the eastern offshoots) - and the CC (excluding the protestant offshoots) - can’t both be right, as far as the question of schism goes, and the historical, biblical, logical conclusion, (not forgetting the early church fathers, both east and west, of course) - in my humble opinion, points to the CC as being the church of Matthew 16, John 16:13, John 14:16, Acts 1 and 2, and Matthew 28:20, but I do have a strong affection for the EOC, as well as all PC’s. All churches, in my opinion, are awesome and serve the ultimate purpose in this life, which is to share with the secular world the hopes and anticipation of what lies in the next world, thanks to Jesus Christ, but I do believe that Jesus would want everyone, if possible, to belong to the church of Matthew 16 and 18, John 16:13, John 14:16, Acts 1 and 2, and Matthew 28:20.
I was really hoping to leave the CC out of the discussion, that way the thread wouldn’t derail so quickly, which is why I worded it the following way:
Which non-Catholic (Protestant) - church in the world today, (leaving the Catholic Church completely out of the picture) - can rightfully trace its provenance all the way back to the apostolic age? In other words, let’s assume for the time being, that the Catholic church never existed…
I hope this thread goes somewhere because it was a question that was key to my conversion, and if I am wrong on some level, I certainly would want to be corrected.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Jon, I was tired and rushed when I last posted and I apologize for the brevity of said post. Like I mentioned to Gurney, I was really hoping to leave the CC out of the discussion, that way the thread wouldn’t derail so quickly, which is why I worded it the following way:
Which non-Catholic (Protestant) - church in the world today, (leaving the Catholic Church completely out of the picture) - can rightfully trace its provenance all the way back to the apostolic age? In other words, let’s assume for the time being, that the Catholic church never existed…
I am attempting to determine whether or not any one protestant church, in the world today, can establish a direct continues link (as the CC can) - to the apostolic age, with the hypothetical notion in mind, that the CC never existed? There just does not seem to be any viable way to link the 16th century protestant movement to the 1st century apostolic age, when we remove the CC in communion with Rome, from the equation, which seems to remove the possibility of apostolic succession for any one PC. Your thoughts brother?
Which non-Catholic (Protestant) - church in the world today, (leaving the Catholic Church completely out of the picture) - can rightfully trace its provenance all the way back to the apostolic age? In other words, let’s assume for the time being, that the Catholic church never existed…
I am attempting to determine whether or not any one protestant church, in the world today, can establish a direct continues link (as the CC can) - to the apostolic age, with the hypothetical notion in mind, that the CC never existed? There just does not seem to be any viable way to link the 16th century protestant movement to the 1st century apostolic age, when we remove the CC in communion with Rome, from the equation, which seems to remove the possibility of apostolic succession for any one PC. Your thoughts brother?
P
pablope
Guest
Joe, I think this will sum it best…no root, no tree…no branches, no fruit…
Romans 11:16-18 (New American Standard Bible)
16If the (A)first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.
17But if some of the (B)branches were broken off, and (C)you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
18do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that (D)it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I wouldn’t say I have a strong affection for Orthodoxy as I really disagree with some of their views; I think their view of the Atonement really undermines the whole point of why Christ came into the world. I find it way off and not something I can sanction at all. I also don’t like the dislike from some and absence at best of the works of St. Augustine in their history. I also don’t like the use of levened bread, passionate anger toward the filioque, and the tremendous lack of drive among so many of them to NOT reunite with Rome. I’m not keen on the overemphasis on icons or how they view iconography. I think it takes on a heavier dimension than Catholic devotion to images. I also don’t like how they’re broken up by ethnic lines and so quiet on the world stage. I would venture to say that nine out of ten folks couldn’t even name one Orthodox bishop in the entire world. I think the fact that they’re lacking the pope also is huge. I wouldn’t say I have “affection” for them at all but I do have affection for individual Orthodox Christians, especially in here, like Hesychios, Harpazo, and especially Mickey. They’re good men, very godly men. I just disagree with Orthodoxy in some big ways. I do deeply respect all that Orthodoxy has been through–most notably communism and Islam persecuting and dominating them!
Sadly Scott, I agree. However, I did not know, with certainty, that the EOC did not recognize the Sacraments of the CC as being valid?
Both the EOC (excluding the eastern offshoots) - and the CC (excluding the protestant offshoots) - can’t both be right, as far as the question of schism goes, and the historical, biblical, logical conclusion, (not forgetting the early church fathers, both east and west, of course) - in my humble opinion, points to the CC as being the church of Matthew 16, John 16:13, John 14:16, Acts 1 and 2, and Matthew 28:20, but I do have a strong affection for the EOC, as well as all PC’s. All churches, in my opinion, are awesome and serve the ultimate purpose in this life, which is to share with the secular world the hopes and anticipation of what lies in the next world, thanks to Jesus Christ, but I do believe that Jesus would want everyone, if possible, to belong to the church of Matthew 16 and 18, John 16:13, John 14:16, Acts 1 and 2, and Matthew 28:20.
I was really hoping to leave the CC out of the discussion, that way the thread wouldn’t derail so quickly, which is why I worded it the following way:
Which non-Catholic (Protestant) - church in the world today, (leaving the Catholic Church completely out of the picture) - can rightfully trace its provenance all the way back to the apostolic age? In other words, let’s assume for the time being, that the Catholic church never existed…
I hope this thread goes somewhere because it was a question that was key to my conversion, and if I am wrong on some level, I certainly would want to be corrected.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Only thing is, pablo, with grapes you can just cut off a vine, stick it in the ground, and it does grow a new grape vine plant often times with awesome new grapes you know! 
The answer, then, is, as you know, none. Those Lutherans that do have apostolic succession, though the CC would consider them either invalid or ilicit, do and must trace their lines through the Catholic Church. It wasn’t my intent to derail, but simply to point out that, in effect, from a Roman POV, so must the Orthodox.
And that would also be true of the PNCC, Old Catholics, etc.
And I’d make one further point from my own perspective, that being that this is the way it ought to be if reformationists recognize that the divisions of the Reformation ought to be considered temporary.
Jon
J
joe370
Guest
Jon, I wasn’t referring to you regarding the derailing of the thread. I was just speaking in general. You know how that goes; I myself have been plenty guilty of derailing threads from time to time.
What do you mean by temporary?
J
joe370
Guest
Jon, if the EOC can trace its
lineage all the way back to the apostolic age, even if, hypothetically, the CC never existed, then it seems that the EOC would not have to trace their lineage through the CC to achieve AS?
J
joe370
Guest
Gurneyhalleck…
The EOC does seem to overlook history as well as Matthew 16, but, to each his/her own.
Regarding said affection, I was thinking and perceiving, more from the notion that all churches teach that salvation can be found thru Christ. That’s always a great thing you know…
Are you referring to penal substitution, comprising the work of Jesus on the cross as the satisfaction of God’s justice, in light of the fall, versus Jesus’ work on the cross which merely rescued us from the powers of death, as if God’s justice for the fall, due to the sin of man, was not the focal point?
I totally agree. What I find interesting is what the one CC both east and west, embraced, prior to the great east west schism.
Agreed!
There does seem to be excessive anger, by some, over a couple of words. The CC in both the east and the west, for centuries, seemed to remain in full communion for the most part, in spite of the filioque, and after all, it is biblical, and embraced by many eastern fathers, so the fact that it took so long for the filioque to create a serious chasm between the two, seems to suggest that there was something else, other than doctrinal integrity, going on when the crisis occurred. The whole thing seems rather shrouded in mystery, and there did seem to be certain political factors at play, regarding the Frankish Empire and the Byzantine Empire, if I am viewing history correctly. Moreover, even though Pope Leo III agreed with the filioque phrase, as did his successors, theologically, he seemed opposed to adopting it in Rome and he had, (if this piece of history is correct) - the original text (minus the filioque) - engraved on two silver tablets, at the tomb of Peter, and it was not used at the Mass, up to that point, which begs the question: why?
That is true. No doubt due to the magisterial office of Peter as the universal shepherd of Jesus’ church.
They do seem to be awfully quite on the world stage, but I’m not really too bothered by any of those things. Icons, for example, are filled with symbolism designed to convey a sense of spiritualism and continuity with the holy family and all those saints in heaven. I think it’s kind of cool as long as it doesn’t get silly.
I agree, but most non-Catholics (the EOC being the exception, regarding the primacy of Rome only) - will simply insist that the magisterium of Rome is not biblical, but they are perfectly fine with the magisterium of their respective churches, not being biblical.
The EOC does seem to overlook history as well as Matthew 16, but, to each his/her own.
Agreed…Not in major ways though, other than the atonement issue.
Ok, Joe.Jon, if the EOC can trace its
lineage all the way back to the apostolic age, even if, hypothetically, the CC never existed, then it seems that the EOC would not have to trace their lineage through the CC to achieve AS?
Jon
J
jblake
Guest
vsedriver;:
In the west, the written evidence dates back to circa 900 AD. The major issue with the written evidence is that there is no provable chain linking the groups as direct successors of each other. The theological congruence suggests a connection, from either an oral or written tradition. However, it is equally plausible that the theological congruence was independently arrived at.
In the east, so much data has been lost, that we don’t even know the basic beliefs, practices, and theology of those Christians. Educated guesses can be made, but that is about it. As far as dissidents go, we don’t even know if there were any, much less what their beliefs and practices were.
jonathon
Most of the data about the beliefs, practices, and theology of Christians that did not submit to the Catholic Pope, or a Church Patriarch has been lost, or deliberately destroyed. (For Christians in the east, the data was usually lost. For Christians in the west, the data was usually deliberately destroyed.)
In the west, the written evidence dates back to circa 900 AD. The major issue with the written evidence is that there is no provable chain linking the groups as direct successors of each other. The theological congruence suggests a connection, from either an oral or written tradition. However, it is equally plausible that the theological congruence was independently arrived at.
In the east, so much data has been lost, that we don’t even know the basic beliefs, practices, and theology of those Christians. Educated guesses can be made, but that is about it. As far as dissidents go, we don’t even know if there were any, much less what their beliefs and practices were.
jonathon
S
Sneakypete
Guest
Could you please give me the source of your assertion that there was indeed written evidence but that it was destroyed? There is no historical evidence for this assertion. Who said that the writings were destroyed? If there was undeed an early group of true Believers would not the Holy Spirit have preserved those early believers and some of their written teachings? No-one has been more persecuted than the early Christians, yet despite the attempts of the power of Imperial Rome to eradicate every vestige of their existance and their radical teachings, much survived. The Church under the protection of Jesus managed to secure the early epistles and teachings. I have heard this argument many times but have yet to see any shred of evidence to support it.
PAX
Mike
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Speaking of the Eastern Catholic Traditions, the Term “Orthodox” came about to identify the difference between the Eastern heretodox communities and heretical Eastern Church’s from the Eastern Church’s who took on this new “Orthodox” term claiming to Apostolic succession and teachings, not to mention remained in full communion with the Pope (bishop of Rome).
I’d like to mention here, Just because one bishop who dies or is martyred during his episcopacy did not mean the apostolic succession ended, because their remained apostolic successors to appoint a new, just as Peter and the apostles appointed Mathias in place of Judas.
A quality of a valid apostolic successor is one who remains faithful to the Church’s teachings, and magisterium. A change from any of these invalidates the succession, not to mention the apostolic ordination from apostolic successors.
I’d like to mention here, Just because one bishop who dies or is martyred during his episcopacy did not mean the apostolic succession ended, because their remained apostolic successors to appoint a new, just as Peter and the apostles appointed Mathias in place of Judas.
A quality of a valid apostolic successor is one who remains faithful to the Church’s teachings, and magisterium. A change from any of these invalidates the succession, not to mention the apostolic ordination from apostolic successors.
gmcbroom;7515876]The Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church of the East are Catholic though their traditions are different due to culture but the Doctrines are similiar to the Catholic Church and they claim to be Catholic though its a broad term and they would be correct. Wow it’s been awhile since I’ve done a run on sentence.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Other than the rediscovered Key of Truth, the vast majority of information about groups outside of Rome or Catholic or Orthodoxy are written by their opponents. Tracing the churches is a big jigsaw. We know names but numbers, actual theology, and connections are lost.
I really am not one to buy into conspiracy theories but winners wrote the history.
I really am not one to buy into conspiracy theories but winners wrote the history.
- Status