Alexius, I think your response is void of the line of history which the church holds alone. No other church that believes these things has the line of bishops in union with Rome or in union with the apostles and Jesus himself, other than the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore if it is not plugged in to the One who ordained the first bishops, there is no power. It would be like holding a plug 2 centimeters from the socket and claiming you have the power, yet it is evident that you do not.
Plug in!
Iām not sure if you are just referring to the Protestants here, as we Orthodox sure have the history (and most of the original Sees, including St. Peterās).
āNo other church that believes these things has the line of bishops in union with Romeā yes, I guess if you skip over a few things like the Great Western Schism, Leo III banning the filioque and Leo IX demanding, well I guess youāre right, but whatās your point?
āor in union with the apostles and Jesus himself, other than the Roman Catholic Church.ā The Catholic Encyclopedia is very amusing on this score:
To be in continuity with the Church founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary, for, as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors. Antioch, once the see and centre of St. Peterās labours, fell into the hands of Monophysite patriarchs under the Emperors Zeno and Anastasius at the end of the fifth century. The Church of Alexandria in Egypt was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, the mandatory of St. Peter. It flourished exceedingly until the Arian and Monophysite heresies took root among its people and gradually led to its extinction. The shortest-lived Apostolic Church is that of Jerusalem. In 130 the Holy City was destroyed by Hadrian, and a new town, Ćlia Capitolina, erected on its site. The new Church of Ćlia Capitolina was subjected to Caesarea; the very name of Jerusalem fell out of use till after the Council of Nice (325).The Greek Schism now claims its allegiance. Whatever of Apostolicity remains in these Churches founded by the Apostles is owing to the fact that Rome picked up the broken succession and linked anew to the See of Peter. The Greek Church, embracing all the Eastern Churches involved in the schism of Photius and Michael Caerularius, and the Russian Church can lay no claim to Apostolic succession either direct or indirect, i.e. through Rome, because they are, by their own fact and will, separated from the Roman Communion. During the four hundred and sixty-four between the accession of Constantine (323) and the Seventh General Council (787), the whole or part of the Eastern episcopate lived in schism for no less than two hundred and three years: namely from the Council of Sardica (343) to St. John Chrysostom (389), 55 years; owing to Chrysostomās condemnation (404-415), 11 years; owing to Acadius and the Henoticon edict (484-519), 35 years; total, 203 years (Duchesne). They do, however, claim doctrinal connection with the Apostles, sufficient to their mind to stamp them with the mark of Apostolicity.
newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm
Yes, teaching what the Apostles taught is Apostolic.
We didnāt receive the Gospel through (except Alexandria), so why would we need our orders through her? That One ordained them in Jerusalem which is still Orthodox. That Church did not die but moved across the Jordan, and Eusebius records the unbroken record who sat on the Throne (the only See he uses that term for) of St. James, the brother of God, which has continued to this day.
In Antioch Rome set up a rival to St. Meletius. His line survives to this day, unbroken, in both OO and EO branches (soon God willing to be one). Romeās died out.
In Alexandria, the line of St. Athanasius and St. Cyril continue in the unbroken OO and EO lines to this day (soon God willing to be one). Rome didnāt have a patriarch there until this past century.
So much for claims of extinction.
