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

[po18guy]

Oh Oh! I highly suspected that claims would soon arrive, asserting once again, that Luther was simply misunderstood and was a heaven-sent angel; the only force on planet earth for truth, justice and the Lutheran way.

I’ve read his vile and profane tripe. The man stands before God convicted by his own words! Matthew 12:36-37.

He needs prayer and I suspect that he is finally at peace and extremely thankful for his state of purgation.

 

[MichaelP3]

Your post even started with an assumption. I will let YOU do the searching in what “Protestants” say when they say “Church”. Take note " Not only you are misunderstanding this", the posts on here tell me the situation is a lot “broader” that than you might think!

Saying one is wrong is great for humility and just common self reflection! Some Popes have said “something” in this sense. But saying “the church” was wrong in whatever? That is incomprehensible and utterly unrealistic. Just saying!

Even starting to describe another denomination (YES! Catholicism is also a denomination) as being deficient just adds to what one poster on here calls Triumphalism. There is really no two ways about this! Accepting I have a deficient understanding of the word Church doesn’t change much. You or your Catholic brothers cannot change history even when you try to.

Your last reply there to me would be considered very interesting! I would EXPECT the Catholic Church to own up to THEIR mistakes and admit they are just as FALLIBLE as all of us and history has proven time and again . Go into this and you will see. Really do this as it seems you have not! Do not just believe what you are told. “Being thought something” is a signature phrase on this forum and I always grin at the mere sight of it. Do Catholics even start to FATHOM that THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN “TAUGHT” SOMETHING!

Maybe I am going on for too long but it is utterly important that Catholics actually do understand the frustration of the other side!

Regards

 

[po18guy]

jon, please state clearly which Luther you are speaking of.

Up to 1517, when his rebellion flared, he was indeed Catholic. And, arguably, for some time thereafter. But, he and his theology rapidly degenerated after that. He claimed not to be on a mission to change Church teaching. He ended up contorting it into unrecognizability.

Why did the Orthodox also flatly reject the “reformation”? If the Orthodox are true and if Luther’s theology was true, why would this happen?

You can neither cherry pick scripture nor which Luther you seek to defend.

 

[Vico]

Okay soooo… Lutherans were the first to reject bishops, then?

That’s worse than I thought! How can we have common ground and hope for reunion if we don’t even agree on ecclesiology, in the first place!

Sola scriptura is contrary to Tradition which is what the Apostolic Succession is, and also the denial of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Council of Trent:

“If anyone say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer grace on those who place no obstacle to the same, let him be anathema” (Sess. viii, can.vi).

 

[MichaelP3]

Yup. Catholics always seem to forget to check the historical context of the time. In actaul fact they always tend to forget the history part!

 

[SnowRose]

They seem unable to grasp that Lutherans don’t consider their Magisterium an authority. It’s a case of ”So there!” meeting ”So what?”, and that is not very conductive to any debate.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Catholics always seem to forget to check the historical context of the time. In actaul fact they always tend to forget the history part!

I believe that there’s just a little bit of history re-writing that is going on too, don’t you think?

 

[guanophore]

Your post even started with an assumption .

Actually, no.

I learned this from multiple Protestants after I came here to CAF. I did not know that Protestants by and large reject the communion of saints, but the consistent definition I get here on CAF has been “the body of believers on earth”.

I will let YOU do the searching in what “Protestants” say when they say “Church”.

In fact, one cannot really lump “Protestants” into any single category on any doctrine of the faith. Division begets division, so more splits have been happening from the Reformation to this day, and there are opposing sects on virtually every doctrine.

Suffice to say that they do not accept the Catholic doctrine!

Not only you are misunderstanding this", the posts on here tell me the situation is a lot “broader” that than you might think!

You mean, how “church” is defined?

Saying one is wrong is great for humility and just common self reflection!

I suppose so, but only if one can take responsibility for their wrong saying. If not, I don’t think any humility or examination of conscience can occur.

Some Popes have said “something” in this sense.

Many Popes have said wrong things. Many Popes (some more than others) have not had any apparent humility or self reflection occur. The Medici Popes come to mind.

But saying “the church” was wrong in whatever? That is incomprehensible and utterly unrealistic.

Yes, because God cannot be “wrong”. Jesus has not abandoned the Church, as Protestants seem to believe. He promised to guide the Church into 'all Truth". Either He kept His promise, or he got the flu for the last 600 years and was unable to do it.

Even starting to describe another denomination (YES! Catholicism is also a denomination)

You may wish to believe this, but on the contrary, all [denominations are defined and described](http://from Latin denominat- ‘named’, from the verb denominare, from de- ‘away, formally’ + nominare ‘to name’ (from nomen, nomin- ‘name’).) by which parts, and how much of Catholic teaching they deny.

To “denominate” means to take one’s name away from another Source. That Source is the Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church. All those who have separated themselves from her are defined and described (denominated) by how they are different from the teachings handed down to us from the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

Even starting to describe another denomination (YES! Catholicism is also a denomination) as being deficient just adds to what one poster on here calls Triumphalism.

I do agree that there are triumphalistic Catholics here on CAF. But this too shows a lack of humility, because we only have what we do because it was passed down to us (paradosis), and have no reason to boast about it. We are fortunate to have the fullness of faith, but many Catholics who have this do less with that fullness than Protestants who have been separated from us. Some Protestants put many Catholics to shame with their devotion and zeal for the faith.

Accepting I have a deficient understanding of the word Church doesn’t change much.

How would you know that, since you have not done so?

You or your Catholic brothers cannot change history even when you try to.

I don’t see how history has anything to do with how Church was defined by the Apostles?

I would EXPECT the Catholic Church to own up to THEIR mistakes and admit they are just as FALLIBLE as all of us and history has proven time and again .

Catholics are fallible, and make mistakes. The Church is not.

Do Catholics even start to FATHOM that THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN “TAUGHT” SOMETHING!

I wonder, sometimes, as many Catholics are very poorly catechized. I used to be one of them!

Catholics always seem to forget to check the historical context of the time. In actaul fact they always tend to forget the history part!

This knife cuts both ways. I have encountered many Protestants, especially fundamentalist “bible christians” that don’t even know where they got their Bible.

We all need to learn more about history, so we are not doomed to repeat it!

 

[PickyPicky]

Well, that’s a relie…wait a minute. You usually agreed with me. Now I’m worried.

Yeah, but I only ceded you Tudor Church history because I usually agreed with you. If I usually disagreed, the fact that you have superior knowledge of the subject would, of course, not prevent me expressing fierce and noisy condemnation.

 

[steve-b]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

See that timeline there? Most colors readily continue the ancient Christian understanding of ecclessiology – more or less, insofar as Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, Anglicans, and Lutheran bodies maintain bishops and some notion of Apostolic Succession.

That graph is false.

Catholic Church from the 1st century

There was no “Orthodox” Church till after the first millenium.

 

[steve-b]

That graph is false.

Catholic Church from the 1st century

There was no “Orthodox” Church till after the first millenium.

to add to this post

The name Catholic Church is used by

St Polycarp, ~140 a.d. Bp of Smyrna, also a disciple of St John the apostle. He called the Church the “Catholic Church”
The Martyrdom of Polycarp

Muratorian canon~170 a.d.Here uses the authority of “Catholic Church” in determining the canon

Irenaeus ~180 a.d. from Smyrna, became bishop of Lyon, wrote “Against Heresies” he called the Church the “Catholic Church” Adversus haereses [Bk 1 Chapter 10 v 3] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm . Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, therefore, since Polycarp was a disciple of John, Irenaeus is one man away from an apostle. Irenaeus teaches all must agree with Rome [Bk 3, Chapter 3, v 2-3] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm on account of its preeminent authority . He describes why Rome has such authority

Cyprian~250 a.d. calls the Church the Catholic Church Epistle 54 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm

The Nicene Creed, 325 a.d., teaches it’s an article of faith to believe in the “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”

Augustine ~395 Saint and Doctor of the Church. There are many other things that most justly keep me in her [i.e. the Catholic Church’s] bosom. . . . The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental (ch 5 v6) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm

etc etc etc

 

[MichaelP3]

Being a little bit or a lot depends who you talk to.

My wife is actually currently at our National Conference on history in Bloemfontein. She is busy with her PhD in history. Maybe that is why I am posting to much on here recently. She normally “keeps me in check”.

Anyway! I just never understood Newman and why any person with “some grasp of history” would quote him.

Regards

 

[JonNC]

jon, please state clearly which Luther you are speaking of.

Up to 1517, when his rebellion flared, he was indeed Catholic. And, arguably, for some time thereafter. But, he and his theology rapidly degenerated after that. He claimed not to be on a mission to change Church teaching. He ended up contorting it into unrecognizability.

The “official “ Luther position”, which can be found in the Augsburg Confession and the Apology. While he didn’t write them, he did approve them and was party to their presentation.

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.

Regularly called means called and ordained.

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.

24] The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. 25] But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. Let them see to it how they will give an account to God for dispersing 26] the Church. In this matter our consciences are not in danger, because since we know that our Confession is true, godly, and catholic, we ought not to approve the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine. 27] And we know that the Church is among those who teach the Word of God aright, and administer the Sacraments aright, and not with those who not only by their edicts endeavor to efface God’s Word, but also put to death those who teach what is right and true; 28] towards whom, even though they do something contrary to the canons, yet the very canons are milder. Furthermore, we wish here again to testify that we will gladly maintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided the bishops only cease to rage against our Churches. This our desire will clear us both before God and among all nations to all posterity from the imputation against us that the authority of the bishops is being undermined, when men read and hear that, although protesting against the unrighteous cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice.

To say that “needed no ordained ministerial priesthood” is patently, historically false.

 

[GKMotley]

Ok. Now I feel better.

 

[MichaelP3]

That is a great fallacy to even attempt to fathom that!

I seriously wonder when you will start to grasp that Proper nouns do not define the Catholic Church AND ANY OTHER DENOMINATION?

The Catholic Church is but a DENOMINATION of the umbrella term called CHRISTIAN.

Maybe I didn’t " properly reference anything " but come on. Who are you trying to fool!

 

[MaryT777]

No, The Catholic Church is the Church Jesus himself founded. The Church was not left in the dust for 500 years waiting for Luther or any other reformer to “reform” the doctrine. The Concord book that Lutherans use defines the Pope still to this day as the Antichchrist thanks to
Luther and his confessional Lutherans who still believe this to be true. This is the type of nonsense I see other denominations echo.

The others either accept or reject parts of Catholicism and are off shoots of the Catholic Church if their denomination is Christian. The ELCA Lutheran Church actually signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification which led to some agreement on Justification which the confessional Lutherans, LCMS, WELS did not sign.

Therefore saying Lutheran needs to be defined now even further as to what synod. The ELCA Lutherans ordain women, homosexuals, and from what I understood (at least at one time) had no real pro life stance.

The “Reformation” has led to disunity and division which is getting worse and worse over time.

 

[MichaelP3]

No, The Catholic Church is the Church Jesus himself founded

This is something I see “too many times”. Do you realise Lutherans are called that because that was a “thing” used by “the other side” that time?

Do you understand Lutherans do also believe Jesus founded Christianity? Catholics give Luther too much credit as you proved!

My advice would be that you need to study some history! Maybe you were taught some things but saying stuff like this is not excusable! You have internet.

Don’t just get stuck with the Catechism. Go further and try to see the other side

 

[Dovekin]

There was no “Orthodox” Church till after the first millenium.

That is why it is the split of Orthodox and Catholics is labeled “Great Schism, 11th century.”

 

[steve-b]

That is a great fallacy to even attempt to fathom that!

I seriously wonder when you will start to grasp that Proper nouns do not define the Catholic Church AND ANY OTHER DENOMINATION?

The Catholic Church is but a DENOMINATION of the umbrella term called CHRISTIAN.

Maybe I didn’t " properly reference anything " but come on. Who are you trying to fool!

References are important

The year ~180

Irenaeus had to deal with Gnostics in his day. The Gnostic heresy is still with us today. Here is how Irenaeus answered your objection

Against Heresies Bk3, ch3, v’s 1-3

Read it carefully. How does one find THIS Church he is talking about, if this Church has no proper name? Irenaeus is already calling out those who meet in unauthorized settings. How does one know they are unauthorized, AND people of the true faith in the true Church are to avoid THEM

So there is no confusion, Irenaeus tells us exactly, by name, what Church he is in and defends. Bk 1 ch 10 v 3 last sentence if you want to cut to the chase.

Who did Irenaeus say this information came from down to his day? From Peter and Paul at Rome, AND faithful bishops (12 by name) down to his day.

Irenaeus, is one (Bp Polycarp) away from an apostle.

BTW Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp were both direct disciples of St John the apostle. Both have no problems identifying the Church as the Catholic Church.

AND

Ignatius wrote, the Church of Rome holds the presidency. AND schism from the Catholic Church one won’t be saved.

gee, where would Ignatius learn THAT

would you like again, the passages from scripture.