What is wrong with Apostolic Succession? Isn’t it an important aspect of Christianity?

[MDK]

Sure, you’re correct. But that is not the context of ‘intent’, as used in Apostolicae Curae, and which has to be paired with ‘form’ (the Edwardine Ordinal) for the whole picture.

Which is only a valid (here we go again) criticism if
*Apostlicae Curae *itself is valid. And there are arguments against it. And historical arguments as to what was really going on. But set that aside.That’s not what a RC should affirm, as we know.

What would you suppose would be the result of the infusion of vald/illict episcopal lines into the Anglican communion, over 60 years or so, from the Old Catholics of Utrecht, and the PNCC. You can swing for the fence on this. AFAIK, there is no offical ruling on it from the RCC.

GKC

No need to explain. You can argue with the authority all you want (many people do, including the rebellious which is the way the Anglican church was started), but it doesn’t change that Anglican orders were declared invalid by the Vicar of Christ.

 

[GKC]

No need to explain. You can argue with the authority all you want (many people do, including the rebellious which is the way the Anglican church was started), but it doesn’t change that Anglican orders were declared invalid by the Vicar of Christ.

That is the proper thing for an RC to affirm.

And we were doing so well, for a while.

GKC

 

[MDK]

That is the proper thing for an RC to affirm.

And we were doing so well, for a while.

GKC

We’re actually doing the same as before. I’m just not going down the path (astray from the true Church’s teachings regarding Anglicanism) that you would like me to.

 

[GKC]

We’re actually doing the same as before. I’m just not going down the path (astray from the true Church’s teachings) that you would like me to.

Wrong, in every syllable. In all my postings, in all the years I have been posting, I have never tried to change a RC’s opinion on anything (unless it was that he should read Chesterton). I suspect you can find folks on this board who can attest to that (maybe). When I tell you that is the proper thing for a RC to affirm, I mean it.

I never try to make a RC think like an Anglican. I show how an Anglican thinks. And I often deal in history.

GKC.

 

[MDK]

Wrong, in every syllable. In all my postings, in all the years I have been posting, I have never tried to change a RC’s opinion on anything (unless it was that he should read Chesterton). I suspect you can find folks on this board who can attest to that (maybe). When I tell you that is the proper thing for a RC to affirm, I mean it.

I never try to make a RC think like an Anglican. I show how an Anglican thinks. And I often deal in history.

GKC.

Go back and read my post again. I realized I hadn’t been specific as to what was meant, and added such before you posted.

I agree that you’re not trying to convert me. That wasn’t the intent of what I wrote. Please re-review.

We’re actually doing the same as before. I’m just not going down the path (astray from the true Church’s teachings regarding Anglicanism) that you would like me to.

The above statement was last edited by MDK : Today at 4:05 pm. Reason: be more spedific by adding “regarding Anglicanism” Your post was 4:08 pm, 3 minutes later, but you likely quoted me before it was made more specific to clarify the original intent.

 

[GKC]

Go back and read my post again. I realized I hadn’t been specific as to what was meant, and added such before you posted.

I agree that you’re not trying to convert me. That wasn’t the intent of what I wrote. Please re-review.

The above statement was last edited by MDK : Today at 4:05 pm. Reason: be more spedific by adding “regarding Anglicanism” Your post was 4:08 pm, 3 minutes later, but you likely quoted me before it was made more specific to clarify the original intent.

I appreciate your clarification. My response is the same. I have no interest in what you or the RCC thinks of Anglicanism and Apostolic succession, save in as far as it relates to our divisions, in the spirit of John 17. Believe me. I have an interest in history.

Though I have vast respect for the magisterium, I don’t have the sort of respect that you do. Hence, when I find a point we differ on, I must go deep into history to study it. You can do the same, but you needn’t. You have the teaching of the RCC.

When I speak of Apostolicae Curae, and Apostolic succession, it’s not to change your mind, about it, or Anglicanism. It’s to relate history; who did what, and why, when. If that caused you to weaken in your belief, I’d be surprised. And I would be not necessarily pleased.

But it, and things like the system of impediments/annulments and dispensations current in the 16th century, pre-Trent, are hobby areas for me, like WWII, Chesterton, and science fiction (etc). I can talk them, in detail. What you make of them is not my real concern. But it does show how an Anglican can think, deep in history. Which, you will recall, is a good place to be.

Pax, frater.

GKC

 

[Jimmy_B]

findresults.site

The Ministry of Saint Peter, the “leader” of the 12 Apostles, the First Catholic Pope, and his “Papal Supremacy”, supported in the Acts of the Apostles

· About the election of a substitute for Judas (Act.1:15-26). (Acts.1:15-22)
· Immediately after the Pentecost…with 3000 being baptized (Acts.2:14-41)
· After the healing of Crippled Beggar… the baptism now of 5000 (Acts.4:4) (Acts.3:12-26)
· Before the Sanhedrin (Acts.4:8-12)
· After the first liberation from jail (Acts.5:29-33)
· Pentecost of the Gentiles (Acts.10:34-48)
· About the Pentecost of the Gentiles (Acts.11:2-18)

**Sermons of Saint Peter **

· Acts 1:15“During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers…”
· Acts 2:14 *“Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed…”
· Acts 3:12 “*When Peter saw this, he addressed the people…”
· Acts 4:8 “Then Peter, filled with the holy Spirit, answered them…”
· Acts 5:29“But Peter and the apostles said in reply, "We must obey God rather than men…”
· Acts 8:20 “But Peter said to him, "May your money perish with you…”
· Acts 10:34 *“*Then Peter proceeded to speak and said, 13 "In truth, I see that God shows no partiality…”
· Acts 11:4 “Peter began and explained it to them step by step, saying…”

 

[MDK]

I appreciate your clarification. My response is the same. I have no interest in what you or the RCC thinks of Anglicanism and Apostolic succession, save in as far as it relates to our divisions, in the spirit of John 17. Believe me. I have an interest in history.

Though I have vast respect for the magisterium, I don’t have the sort of respect that you do. Hence, when I find a point we differ on, I must go deep into history to study it. You can do the same, but you needn’t. You have the teaching of the RCC.

When I speak of Apostolicae Curae, and Apostolic succession, it’s not to change your mind, about it, or Anglicanism. It’s to relate history; who did what, and why, when. If that caused you to weaken in your belief, I’d be surprised. And I would be not necessarily pleased.

But it, and things like the system of impediments/annulments and dispensations current in the 16th century, pre-Trent, are hobby areas for me, like WWII, Chesterton, and science fiction (etc). I can talk them, in detail. What you make of them is not my real concern. But it does show how an Anglican can think, deep in history. Which, is you will recall, is a good place to be.

Pax, frater.

GKC

That we all be one, is one of my greatest concerns. When everyone does their own thing, it tears us apart. We should be one, united in the Body of Christ. Christ gave us a means for that, and it is through the RCC, His Bride, His Body in which He is made really and truly present to us. I know you’re not trying to convert me. However, I believe you’d make a fine Catholic. Please receive that as a high compliment as it is intended. I don’t see all of us really having the unity that Christ asked for, with people outside of communion with the RCC. It’s also not through false ecumenism that will get us to the type of unity required. The truth must prevail. As you know, the Truth is not something, but Someone who asked for this unity. In disunity, we are not doing what Christ asked. We must all be one, as Christ asked.

 

[GKC]

That we all be one, is one of my greatest concerns. When everyone does their own thing, it tears us apart. We should be one, united in the Body of Christ. Christ gave us a means for that, and it is through the RCC, His Bride, His Body in which He is made really and truly present to us. I know you’re not trying to convert me. However, I believe you’d make a fine Catholic. Please receive that as a high compliment as it is intended. I don’t see all of us really having the unity that Christ asked for, with people outside of communion with the RCC. It’s also not through false ecumenism that will get us to the type of unity required. The truth must prevail. As you know, the Truth is not something, but Someone who asked for this unity. In disunity, we are not doing what Christ asked. We must all be one, as Christ asked.

I won’t argue with that.

added:

OTOH, if you ever need the names if the Apostolicae Curae commisioners, I’m your huckleberry.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

What would you suppose would be the result of the infusion of vald/illict episcopal lines into the Anglican communion, over 60 years or so, from the Old Catholics of Utrecht, and the PNCC.

I was wondering when that would come up. Reading your hitherto conversation with MDK, one would think that no such infusion had ever happened.

 

[Jimmy_B]

That we all be one, is one of my greatest concerns. When everyone does their own thing, it tears us apart. We should be one, united in the Body of Christ. Christ gave us a means for that, and it is through the RCC, His Bride, His Body in which He is made really and truly present to us … I don’t see all of us really having the unity that Christ asked for, with people outside of communion with the RCC. It’s also not through false ecumenism that will get us to the type of unity required. The truth must prevail. As you know, the Truth is not something, but Someone who asked for this unity. In disunity, we are not doing what Christ asked. We must all be one, as Christ asked.

Hello MDK,

Well Put!
Great Post!
Thank You!

Peace,

Jimmy

 

[Peter_J]

As ancient as that principle may be, it is not biblical. The bible does not distinguish between the offices of Bishop and Elder.

Touché. In the very early Church, there were Bishops and Deacons. Priests – or, more precisely, Priests who weren’t Bishops – were added in slightly later.

In theory, I suppose we could return to that situation by ordaining every Priest to the episcopate, but that seems a little far-fetched.

 

[GKC]

I was wondering when that would come up. Reading your hitherto conversation with MDK, one would think that no such infusion had ever happened.

It is, I guess, possible to have differing opinions on it.But I suspect it played a part in the two known *sub conditione *ordinations, of Frs.Hughes and Leonard.

GKc

 

[MDK]

I was wondering when that would come up. Reading your hitherto conversation with MDK, one would think that no such infusion had ever happened.

Mr. Peter,
The thinking person may also wonder what effect something like that really would have had. I didn’t address that, and it’s debatable about what effects it has had on the entire Anglican church. However, what’s your take?

 

[GKC]

Mr. Peter,
The thinking person may also wonder what effect something like that really would have had. I didn’t address that, and it’s debatable about what effects it has had on the entire Anglican church. However, what’s your take?

I’m about to leave my computer, so let me merely observe that those lines are everywhere in Anglicanism, even where they can’t do any good in the matter. We use the same “3 sets of hands” that you do, and it spreads. My own priest was ordained by a bishop whose chief consecrator had direct PNCC lines, from 1962.

Good night to all.

GKC

 

[MDK]

I won’t argue with that.

added:

OTOH, if you ever need the names if the Apostolicae Curae commisioners, I’m your huckleberry.

GKC

Thanks. There are many who do put up quite a fight with that kind of statement in word and deed. The fewer people that argue with that, the better.

I have no reason to doubt you’d be the right guy. I don’t see a need for the names of the commissioners at this time, as I have plenty of resources available.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

http://www.allsaintssanfran.org/Twelve Apostles/Peter/Peter, Christ Charge to Rubens.jpg

What is wrong with [Apostolic Succession (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm)? Isn’t it important?

[Catechism (CCC) Search for “Apostolic Succession”. (http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.co...=0&q=Apostolic+Succession&xsubmit=Search&s=SS)

**Apostolic Succession is support by Christian History, Christian Tradition and Biblically. **

What is wrong with [Apostolic Succession (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm)? Isn’t it an important aspect of Christianity?

Additional Recourses:

Apostolic Succession supported in the Bible;

• Gal 1:19, 2:12
• 1 Cor 15:7.
• Acts 1:2,13; cf. Matthew 16:18
• Acts 1:20-26
• Acts 12:17, 15:13,19, 21:18
• Acts 15:1-29 (The Council of Jerusalem)
• Acts 15:14, 15:13-29
• Jude 1:3
• Judges 9:28
• Isaiah 60:17
• 2 Chronicles 34:12,17
• Nehemiah 11:9
• 2 Kings 11:18
• Numbers 4:16
• Job 20:29
• 1 Peter 2:25
• 1 Peter 5:1; cf. John 21:15-17
• John 6:70
• John 14:26, 16:18
• Ephesians 2:20
• Mark 6:30
• Matthew 10:1-5
• Revelation 21:14
• 2 Timothy 4:1-6

---

The Pope
Catechism (CCC) Search for, “the Pope”
Vicar of Christ
Catechism (CCC) Search for, “Vicar of Christ”
Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles
Chronological list of Roman Catholic Popes
General Councils
Ecclesiastical History
Traditions and the Living Magisterium
Biblical Chronology
Septuagint Version (The first translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, made into popular Greek before the Christian era.)
Codex Amiatinus
The Bible
The Douay Bible

**IMHO, it’s far too one-sidedly clerical . The people are at least as vital to AS as the bishops. The Church would look pretty silly - not to say lop-sided - if it were composed only of clergy or of bishops. Without believers, belief is an abstraction, no more. **​

---

**BTW, what on earth would the author of Job know of it ? There were no Christians before Christ - He’s not just a pretty extra, added tomake things look nice, but the Head of the Church: before the Incarnation, there was no Christ. **

 

[GKC]

Thanks. There are many who do put up quite a fight with that kind of statement in word and deed. The fewer people that argue with that, the better.

I have no reason to doubt you’d be the right guy. I don’t see a need for the names of the commissioners at this time, as I have plenty of resources available.

Fair enough.

GKC

 

[Jimmy_B]

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John 1:1-12http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be 4 through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; 5 the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6 A man named John was sent from God. 7 He came for testimony, 6 to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him.8 He was not the light, but came to testify to the light. 9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him. 11 He came to what was his own, but his own people 7 did not accept him. 12 But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name,

The Old Testament points to the New Testament and the New Testament points to the Old Testament and both lead us to Christ Jesus.

Thank you for your post,

Peace

 

[Jimmy_B]

---

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be"

---

John 1:1-3