What Protestant group was the first to *intentionally abandon Apostolic Succession?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe I do not understand your post there? You are still Anglican so what impact has the “moving Catholic ward” have?
 
Luther leaving the Catholic Church and starting his own church with his own beliefs. He is the Father of Protestantism.
 
lilypadrees said:
Luther leaving the Catholic Church and starting his own church with his own beliefs. He is the Father of Protestantism.
Click to expand...
This is what I mean by saying " we need to know our history" before things like this is said!
 
lilypadrees said:
Luther leaving the Catholic Church and starting his own church with his own beliefs. He is the Father of Protestantism.
Click to expand...
Father of Protestantism is a meaningless term. Huss was around 100 years before Luther. Zwingli and the Anabaptists were concurrent to but not allied with Luther, as none of them agreed with Luther on a broad range of theological doctrines.
Let’s also not forget that the phrase,”Luther leaving the Catholic Church and starting his own church ” doesn’t well reflect the incredible complexity of the events of the time.
But even this isn’t really to topic. Luther’s view of AS is not entirely in alignment with Rome, but neither did he abandon it.
 
MichaelP3 said:
Luther leaving the Catholic Church and starting his own church with his own beliefs. He is the Father of Protestantism.
Click to expand...
Michael, I find that many here have cut and dried statements that are similar to “God / the Church said it; I believe it; end of discussion.” As we know, both history and theology are extremely complex. I have a PhD in theology and there are areas that are way beyond my pay grade. I bow to GKMotley when it comes to Church History and the English break from Rome. He is the Master. So perhaps we can encourage others to do a bit of studying before coming out with definitive statements that are not so accurate. Or instead, ask others for their learned opinions first?

BTW, has anyone considered the Hussites in the early 1400’s? Do we know if Hus advocated for reform of the authority structure, abolishing Succession?
Click to expand...
 
ComplineSanFran said:
Michael, I find that many here have cut and dried statements that are similar to “God / the Church said it; I believe it; end of discussion.” As we know, both history and theology are extremely complex. I have a PhD in theology and there are areas that are way beyond my pay grade. I bow to GKMotley when it comes to Church History and the English break from Rome. He is the Master. So perhaps we can encourage others to do a bit of studying before coming out with definitive statements that are not so accurate. Or instead, ask others for their learned opinions first?
Click to expand...
I agree fully.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
BTW, has anyone considered the Hussites in the early 1400’s? Do we know if Hus advocated for reform of the authority structure, abolishing Succession?
Click to expand...
Certainly Wycliffe in the C14 spoke against the institution of the Papacy and for the reformation of the hierarchy.
 
My posts are not infrequently misunderstood. It is a knack I have.

I was lukewarm Southern Baptist, when I began to expand my primary reading/collecting areas from science fiction, classic Golden Age mysteries, Sherlock Holmes, World War II, and some other genres, to history, more broadly considered. It was originally an interest in political history, but shifted and grew. And I started collecting more deeply and widely, history, Chesterton, Belloc, Lewis, Tolkien, Sayers, Williams, Knox, Dawson, Lunn and other similar. And far deeper into the total history of what became my interest foci: WWII, the Tudor period, development of naval warships, from the late 19th century on, comics, radio shows, science fiction, on and on, to around (I’d guess) 30,000 plus books, total. I bought over 50 books in the past 2 months, roughly half as gifts for my child, who is similarly a manic bibliophile. That’s about average.

Enough chest-thumping. To your question. Reading in history, not originally looking for anything particularly religious, just looking for roots of western civilization (I’m a western civilization chauvinist) showed me the history of the entry of the Church into the story and how it grew and developed. And it pushed me Catholic-ward. And into the Anglo-Catholic expression of Anglicanism, which I account (no one else need to) Catholic (not RC) in the sense I used the term.
And that was from getting deeper into history, and books in general.

One never knows. But it is fun looking.
 
Last edited:
Nailed it! Luther, who denied the sacrificial nature of the mass, thus needed no ordained ministerial priesthood. Neither did he see any requirement for holy orders or the religious life, since God hated mankind and mankind thus could do nothing to please God.

Ministerial priesthood? Gone.

Holy orders? Gone.

Sacrifice of the mass? Gone.

Apostolic teachings? Gone.

This was all based on his personal theology, his grotesquely warped sense of our relationship with God, his “funhouse mirror” perception of God’s attitude toward mankind and several other manifestations of his tortured psychology.

Today many theologians hold that Luther was likely bi-polar/manic-depressive. From that mindset sprang his bizarre beliefs.
 
po18guy said:
Nailed it! Luther, who denied the sacrificial nature of the mass, thus needed no ordained ministerial priesthood. Neither did he see any requirement for holy orders or the religious life, since God hated mankind and mankind thus could do nothing to please God.

Ministerial priesthood? Gone.

Holy orders? Gone.

Sacrifice of the mass? Gone.

Apostolic teachings? Gone.

This was all based on his personal theology, his grotesquely warped sense of our relationship with God, his “funhouse mirror” perception of God’s attitude toward mankind and several other manifestations of his tortured psychology.

Today many theologians hold that Luther was likely bi-polar/manic-depressive. From that mindset sprang his bizarre beliefs.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly Narcissistic Personality Disorder as well.
 
GKMotley said:
My blushes. But be careful. PickyPicky is in the house.
Click to expand...
Balderdash. Get a decent argument going about, say, Wellington crossing the Douro, or some similar bit of trivia, and I will fight to hold my ground. Tudor Church history I cede totally. 🙂
 
Last edited:
Well, that’s a relie…wait a minute. You usually agreed with me. Now I’m worried.

Winter Holiday, in near future.
 
During his revolution, he would wake up in a cold sweat, asking “Am I alone right?”

And, of course, the answer he received was “Yes!”

The evil one, having perhaps the most immense ego ever created, certainly recognizes that flaw and weak spot in men.
 
MichaelP3 said:
The issue is rather that these "Protestants " do not hide behind special formulated sayings like but it’s the people and so on and let’s move on.
Click to expand...
That is mainly because Protestants have created a new definition for “Church”. They believe it is the “body of believers on earth”. For them, there is not distinction between the persons and the Church itself.

For Catholics, the Church is much bigger and immutable than the sinful members who are part of her. Her Head is Christ, who cannot sin, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit, who cannot be “wrong”. She encompasses all the sanctified souls in heaven, and the suffering souls bound for heaven, who cannot sin, or be 'wrong". Only Catholics still in the body can commit sins, and do wrong things.

The teaching of the Church, since it is inviolable and immutable (being from God) also cannot be wrong. So if wrongs are committed by those in authority in the Church, they bear the culpability for their wrongdoing, but the “Church” is not.
MichaelP3 said:
Just say you are sorry and you were WRONG.
Click to expand...
Actually this has been done by several popes over time. It does help with reconciliation.
MichaelP3 said:
You are not fooling anyone with anything else…
Click to expand...
No need. We accept that you have a deficient understanding of the meaning of Church. It is not your fault, you inherited it through the Reformation.
MichaelP3 said:
Just like any “zealous” Catholic on here I also think a lot of fooling is going around…
Click to expand...
You don’t believe there are any Catholics zealous about their faith?
MichaelP3 said:
And it is interesting to me that a Catholic would say this?
Click to expand...
If you think there are not many Catholics who grieve over the sins of other Catholics, you have misunderstood.
PickyPicky said:
Certainly Wycliffe in the C14 spoke against the institution of the Papacy and for the reformation of the hierarchy.
Click to expand...
Good point. The political and economic landscape was insufficient to support his call, same for Huss, so it did not take flight as it did in the time of Luther.
 
guanophore said:
Good point. The political and economic landscape was insufficient to support his call, same for Huss, so it did not take flight as it did in the time of Luther.
Click to expand...
We also did not have the printing press during the time of Wycliffe and Hus, and that made an enormous difference in the serendipitous growth of Luther’s Reformation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top