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

[MichaelP3]

Not to worry. That’s not a bot. And we discussed, rank-ordered and categorized many sub-sets of westerns, back in the day.

I really wonder sometimes!

But okay! He did answer like a human would.

But technology is so advanced these days. At least he didn’t say Terminator is he’s favourite…

 

[GKMotley]

That’s my old pard, there.

 

[guanophore]

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!

This proper noun defined the Church founded by Christ, excluding all others.

Jesus only founded one Church, and it is Catholic. It has been Catholic since it was founded. it was not “denominated” from anything, but all others are denominated from her.

You will not be able to find a “proper reference” because your belief is not supported by history. It is no wonder you have trouble with Newman! You are avoiding getting too deep into history.

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?

Yes, just as “Roman” was intended to be insulting.

Do you understand Lutherans do also believe Jesus founded Christianity?

Of course. It was not Luther’s intention to separate from Catholicism. He intended to reform what he considered to be grievous errors that misdirected the faithful.

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.

I hope you are listening to yourself!!

Personally, I consider the Reformation somewhat like an ugly divorce.
They got to keep the family name, and we kept the Church. I know what I prefer.

Sounds like you are still participating in that ugly divorce. For shame!

 

[steve-b]

That’s my old pard, there.

Howdy Jim

I kinda knew who “someone” was that MichaelP3 referred to.

Did you see, Cheyenne passed on last week.

 

[MichaelP3]

You will not be able to find a “proper reference” because your belief is not supported by history. It is no wonder you have trouble with Newman! You are avoiding getting too deep into history.

You and me both!

Newman was confused but he still got to be a Cardinal. History is history and you as well as I need to check it out. I am not claiming to have it all figured out but YOUR DENOMINATION does. That is the difference.

Regards

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I have to agree to disagree with this chart.
One the Roman Catholic Church remained with unbroken apostolic succession.
Two the later dubbed orthodox Church’s plural have come in and out of communion with the Peter’s Chair and with each other.
Third the 16th century protestant faith’s break away from the full deposit of the Apostolic Catholic Christian faith.
There should be a break or separation in the line graph, during the 16th protestant reformation.
The dotted line remains true in the eastern and Orthodox Church’s due to apostolic succession and valid sacraments.

There is a major difference between what is separated communion in protestant circles and a schism =tear in communion but not completely separated in faith.

 

[MichaelP3]

I hope you are listening to yourself!!

I am! That’s the point. But nobody else gives a hoot! That’s also the point!

 

[MichaelP3]

This proper noun defined the Church founded by Christ, excluding all others.

Jesus only founded one Church, and it is Catholic. It has been Catholic since it was founded. it was not “denominated” from anything, but all others are denominated from her.

What about this one. You start of with so many assumptions. I would more rather be called CHRISTIAN. Named after Christ. A good “denomination” to belong to or maybe that is only my opinion.

I am also not saying Catholics are not part of this because they are. But if we all accept that we are part of this “Christian” denomination that would make us all “catholic” and "universal " but that is too hard for Catholics. Think about that for a moment…

Regards

 

[steve-b]

I have wondered for a very long time if you are some “bot” on CAF with your copy and paste answers that we have seen so many times.

this is not an answer to what was said.

Do you know why I give the answers I do over and over and over again? Because this is the internet. And 10’s of millions of people potentially read this or have access to this answer while doing various searches. I know you don’t like the answer. But lot’s of people DO like knowing where they can get the answer to very important points, and have it all nicely packaged with proper references. Especially when the information destroys things like bogus graphs and fake history people give for trying to support their own errors that can be easily discounted

 

[steve-b]

guanophore:

This proper noun defined the Church founded by Christ, excluding all others.

Jesus only founded one Church, and it is Catholic. It has been Catholic since it was founded. it was not “denominated” from anything, but all others are denominated from her.

What about this one. You start of with so many assumptions. I would more rather be called CHRISTIAN. Named after Christ. A good “denomination” to belong to or maybe that is only my opinion.

Acts 11:26 uses the term Christian

Acts 11:31 uses in Greek Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς
ἐκκλησία = church ,
καθ’ = according to ,
ὅλης = whole / all / complete / universal ,
τῆς = the

As in the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

And we see that name for the Church ever since.

As you see in scripture being outside of this Church in any of the following ways [ dissension division, schism. heresy sedition] means perdition for THEM if they don’t join or return

 

[MichaelP3]

I was thinking the exact same thing!

Actually I can post the EXACT same thing!

Regards

 

[steve-b]

I was thinking the exact same thing!

Actually I can post the EXACT same thing!

Regards

You are a Protestant. So no you can’t

 

[MichaelP3]

You are a Protestant. So no you can’t

Hard to believe hey… but yes I CAN as I can say the exact same thing.

Again as I said. Hard to believe…

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You are a Protestant. So no you can’t

Hard to believe hey… but yes I CAN as I can say the exact same thing.

Again as I said. Hard to believe…

Be careful. You are not “IN” Our Lord’s Church…by choice. You are outside…by choice. Go back and read Ignatius Re: outside the Church…no salvation. Then ask yourself where did he get that teaching. Keeping in mind he is a direct disciple of John. AND Paul’s letters which I have posted make that point crystal clear.

 

[MichaelP3]

Be careful. You are not “IN” Our Lord’s Church…by choice. You are outside…by choice. Go back and read Ignatius Re: outside the Church…no salvation. Then ask yourself where did he get that teaching. Keeping in mind he is a direct disciple of John. AND Paul’s letters which I have posted make that point crystal clear.

Be careful of WHAT? Your damning statements on here? You may not like it but you are just as mistaken as any other person trying to play God! That is an area you should rather step out of!

I am in God’s Church whether you like that or not. That is luckaly not your decision which I am glad for.

And as a side note. Stay very clear of the “be careful notes”. That doesn’t look good on you. You are a person! A human being (although I really wonder simetimes and am very happy Terminator isn’t your favourite movie ). Think about that before you try and post any of that again!

And to end this. I can still say exactly what you posted that started this.

 

[GKMotley]

I did. Almost the last of a breed.

I sent word to my sister. He was her favorite TV cowboy.

 

[MichaelP3]

Of course. It was not Luther’s intention to separate from Catholicism. He intended to reform what he considered to be grievous errors that misdirected the faithful.

Care to share share this with our other Catholic brothers? They seem to have missed the historical memo!

 

[guanophore]

I am not claiming to have it all figured out but YOUR DENOMINATION does. That is the difference.

You are right that there is a difference. Jesus explained everything to His disciples, and the fullness of faith was complete within the Church before a word of the NT was ever written. God has preserved His Word where He has placed it, in the Church, which is the pillar and ground of that faith. The CC did not “denominate” from anywhere, as is evident by the writings of the early fathers, who identified the Church founded by Christ as Catholic.

But nobody else gives a hoot! That’s also the point!

It is not that we don’t care what you think, MichaelIP3, it is that we are not at liberty to accept what for us constitutes “a different gospel” than the one which was received from the Apostles.

You start of with so many assumptions. I would more rather be called CHRISTIAN. Named after Christ. A good “denomination” to belong to or maybe that is only my opinion.

Start what? If you mean that we start with the One Faith that was passed down to us from the Apostles when we read the Scriptures, of course we do. The faith of the Apostles is what created the NT. It was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. Catholics were the only Christians for 1000 years until the great Schism.

am also not saying Catholics are not part of this because they are. But if we all accept that we are part of this “Christian” denomination that would make us all “catholic” and "universal " but that is too hard for Catholics.

Jesus only founded one Church. All who are members of Christ are members of His One Body, the Church. He does not have many “bodies”, just One.

 

[MichaelP3]

Jesus only founded one Church. All who are members of Christ are members of His One Body, the Church. He does not have many “bodies”, just One.

I only have time to reply to this. YES I tottally agree.

And try to tell all your Catholic brothers this! They are UTTERLY failing to understand this. I will pray for you!

 

[guanophore]

I am in God’s Church whether you like that or not. That is luckaly not your decision which I am glad for.

Of course, if you are validly baptized. But why do you have such a hostile attitude toward your siblings in Christ?

But if we all accept that we are part of this “Christian” denomination that would make us all “catholic” and "universal " but that is too hard for Catholics.

Your profile says:

MichaelP3:

Studied the Catechism in full, please don’t refer me to it, I know what it says.

If this is true, then why are you saying What the CCC teaches is “too hard for Catholics”?

If you think that Catholics here are expressing ideas contrary to the Catechism, would it not make more sense to point that out, instead of fruitlessly trying to convince us that the Church founded by Christ is not Catholic, when we have historical evidence otherwise?

Care to share share this with our other Catholic brothers? They seem to have missed the historical memo!

Whether this was his original intention or not, the end result was that Luther did separate from Catholicism in many ways. He created new doctrines that were inconsistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

Are you Lutheran, Michael? Do you believe that the successor of Peter is the antichrist?