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

[Dovekin]

I wonder if the Anabaptists were first to actually abandon AS.

Anabaptists would be my guess as the ONLY group that abandoned apostolic succession, and even that should be qualified somewhat. They, along with Quakers and Shakers and others, had a strong sense of a Church governed directly by the Holy Spirit without a need for clergy.

Political considerations played a major role. Bishops were part of the nobility in a feudal system that was breaking down as merchants became more important. The rejection of bishops was aligned with the rejection of the whole system of kings and princes fighting one another for control. The position became increasingly irrelevant (when was the last time you saw your bishop?).

Bishops were relevant when people sought ordination, but not relevant enough. Other ways of ordination were developed, by priests or congregations without the need for layers of hierarchy. The reasoning was rarely abstract theology, but a part of people struggling to do God’s will.

 

[guanophore]

Are you sure? If someone was convinced; indeed saw it as his duty to break off, the rebellion did happen and we cannot blame Henry for it.

I am convinced from reading the work of the Reformers that they were all convinced, and did see it as their duty to break away from the Catholic Church.

The question is not about blame, I don’t think, but an attempt to establish the historical facts.

we cannot blame Henry for it. He wanted to see an orthodox Church. The CofE has shagged it.

Henry wanted a male heir more than he wanted unity in the Church. Peter’ successor is the visible, earthy, sign of unity. He tore that away from himself. This is a major factor in the continuing splits, most of which emanated out of England. Once that break with the visible sign of unity occurs, the fruit of it is more division.

 

[guanophore]

The theological issues, such as they were during Henry’s reign, were little to do with what was happening in Europe.

Yes, I would like to know more about this a well. I think significant parts of the Reformation were not related to theological issues at all, but of those that did exist, I am not aware of any outside of Europe.

 

[MichaelP3]

Yup.

I sometimes wonder if the posters actually do that before they blurt opinions and accusations!

“Being deep in history” is certainly not a reason “to cease to be Protestant”.

Regards

 

[Wannano]

ComplineSanFran:

Goodness, where are you getting your information? None of this is accurate.

Perhaps you will enlighten me?

On a timeline, Luther is before Henry, but more to the point of the thread, I wonder if the Anabaptists were first to actually abandon AS.

Yes, I had the same thought. The Church was still strong enough (temporally) to swash them, but this was the last gasp. All efforts after than to use temporal power to restrain the faithful failed. There were some brief periods (Bloody Mary comes to mind) but never did the CC have the ability to squash “heretics” after that.

What is the difference between swash and squash? Which of Christ’s teachings were implemented in the swashing, squashing and killing of other human beings?

 

[MichaelP3]

There were some brief periods (Bloody Mary comes to mind) but never did the CC have the ability to squash “heretics” after that.

And glory be to God for that!

 

[deMontfort]

Which of Christ’s teachings were implemented in the swashing, squashing and killing of other human beings?

Probably the same ones used by the Protestants to justify drowning Anabaptists in rivers. Just sayin’.

 

[SnowRose]

Would that be when Catholics teamed up with Lutherans to hunt down Anabaptists?

 

[deMontfort]

Or possibly when the Calvinists were burning Servetus at the stake.

 

[guanophore]

Which of Christ’s teachings were implemented in the swashing, squashing and killing of other human beings?

I was not supporting the method of squashing the perceived heresies. I was just noting that the ability of the Church to effect this kind of stamping out of heresies weakened to the point where it was completely lost.

Jesus said to let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest, not to go pulling up, burning, or torturing those who are thought to be tares!

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Which of Christ’s teachings were implemented in the swashing, squashing and killing of other human beings?

Probably the same ones used by the Protestants to justify drowning Anabaptists in rivers. Just sayin’.

Are you saying that was not justified?

 

[deMontfort]

Are you saying it is? Really?

 

[Wannano]

So are you actually saying the CC disobeyed the teaching of Christ in this effort?

 

[Wannano]

Are you saying it is? Really?

No, I am certainly not saying that. I have always believed the CC felt it was justified.

 

[guanophore]

And glory be to God for that!

Yes, but the practice was immediately taken up by Protestants..

God weeps as we kill one another in His name.

Are you saying that was not justified?

They are fleshly actions, committed by those whose hearts are focused on temporal/wordly things such as power and control. Only God can be the judge of the souls that committed them, all I can say is that they do not appear to be consistent with avoiding those who depart from the faith.

Titus 3:10 As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him

So are you actually saying the CC disobeyed the teaching of Christ in this effort?

None of these actions were ever part of the teaching of the Church.

Many Catholics acted on what they believed was right to do (such as the Crusades) for various reasons.

I have always believed the CC felt it was justified.

Certainly the individual Catholics who participated in it thought so, but this is not part of the Church teaching.

 

[deMontfort]

^^^^^ And that sums it up nicely.

 

[Wannano]

MichaelP3:

And glory be to God for that!

Yes, but the practice was immediately taken up by Protestants..

God weeps as we kill one another in His name.

Are you saying that was not justified?

They are fleshly actions, committed by those whose hearts are focused on temporal/wordly things such as power and control. Only God can be the judge of the souls that committed them, all I can say is that they do not appear to be consistent with avoiding those who depart from the faith.

Titus 3:10 As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him

So are you actually saying the CC disobeyed the teaching of Christ in this effort?

None of these actions were ever part of the teaching of the Church.

Many Catholics acted on what they believed was right to do (such as the Crusades) for various reasons.

I have always believed the CC felt it was justified.

Certainly the individual Catholics who participated in it thought so, but this is not part of the Church teaching.

There were Popes and Bishops who called for the heads of Anabaptists. If the leadership of the Catholic Church does not follow the teaching of the Church who is responsible to correct them and ultimately hold them accountable?

 

[guanophore]

There were Popes and Bishops who called for the heads of Anabaptists. If the leadership of the Catholic Church does not follow the teaching of the Church who is responsible to correct them and ultimately hold them accountable?

Certainly not those who break away from the Church. All men are in need of reform. The doctrines of Christ are not.

Jesus is Head of the Church, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. He has always been able to correct and redirect the wayward members of His Church. Catholics don’t believe that the powerful Jesus sending missives to the Churches in Revelation has been asleep for the following 2000 years!

 

[MichaelP3]

Yes, but the practice was immediately taken up by Protestants..

God weeps as we kill one another in His name.

Yes without a doubt. Horrendous atrocities have been validity associated with “Protestants”. That is not the issue

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. Just say you are sorry and you were WRONG. You are not fooling anyone with anything else…

I am probably wrong on the last part. Just like any “zealous” Catholic on here I also think a lot of fooling is going around…

Regards

 

[GKMotley]

I always encourage folk to do so. Whatever the subject.

But reading deeply into history can have an unpredictable result on one’s opinions. I moved decidedly Catholic-ward, beginning with my readings in history that started when I started college, lo these 55 years ago.