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

[jlhargus]

Right, right. I know Catholics don’t accept Anglican or Lutheran orders, for example. But both those groups tend to at least acknowledge some sense of episcopal governance and apostolic succession.

So which Protestant group/theology was the first to intentionally abandon these historic Christian notions? Was it the Presbyterians or Congregationalists, for example? Calvin himself?

Why is this question important? Besides some of the first Protestant groups, all other ANCIENT and APOSTOLIC churches are based in the notions of episcopal (bishop-led) church governance, rooted in Apostolic Succession. Think Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox like Copts, Assyrian Church, Catholic Church whether Roman, Syriac, or other independent traditions that later entered into communion with it.

I could be wrong but I don’t believe Luther had bishops, if so then that would be the first. If not Luther then Calvin. Scandinavian Lutheranism copied Henry VIII of England.

 

[po18guy]

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.

Did any of them actually read their own bibles? 1 John 4:1-6 is eminently clear on defining the antichrist:

“He who denies that Christ has come in the flesh”

Now, which of the 266 popes has done that?

Zero.

And Catholics are bashed for “polemics.” If you repeat a lie often enough, it supplants the truth.

No wonder why Christianity is sinking and Islam is rising in Europe/America.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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.

All I’m saying

You know too much being here on CAF. Too much to plead ignorance. I’ve done what I’m required to do.

 

[steve-b]

I did. Almost the last of a breed.

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

I’m sure she’s glad there are still reruns of his work

 

[JonNC]

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.

Okay, if your first salvo is the “pope is Antichrist “, then the response must be by Lutherans that the Catholic Church teaches that the only way to get to heaven is by being in communion with the pope, according to Unam Sanctam.

Or, the conversation can be in the topic without that particular diversion.

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.

Off the topic, but if you think the ELCA is a better dialogue partner with women priests and priests who are in openly gay relationships, okay, but I think it’s not s good choice.

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

And every single division has its roots in Rome. And of course, it doesn’t really matter since Unam Sanctam teaches “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff“, so it really doesn’t matter.

 

[JonNC]

Did any of them actually read their own bibles? 1 John 4:1-6 is eminently clear on defining the antichrist:

“He who denies that Christ has come in the flesh”

Now, which of the 266 popes has done that?

Zero.

Correct. None. So it should be obvious that this isn’t what the Lutheran reformers meant.
They were specific that certain teachings regarding the papal office are anti (opposed to) Christ.

Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald - 1537

1] The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

2] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

3] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

4] These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.

 

[deMontfort]

And here we go with the spin

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

What about people who admit to using no references at all? Is that OK?
like here

That was a tongue in cheek reference to a very repetitive poster we find on CAF every now and then

No, you don’t use references properly referenced, you give your opinions.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Lutherans are called Lutherans because Martin Luther is their founder.

If I were you I would change that comment very quickly. It shows a great lack of understanding history as I have suspected

"The religious belief held by the oldest and in Europe the most numerous of the Protestant sects, founded by the Wittenberg reformer, Martin Luther. The term Lutheran was first used by his opponents during the Leipzig Disputation in 1519, and afterwards became universally prevalent. Luther preferred the designation “Evangelical”, and today the usual title of the sect is “Evangelical Lutheran Church”. In Germany, where the Lutherans and the Reformed have united (since 1817), the name Lutheran has been abandoned, and the state Church is styled the Evangelical or the Evangelical United… " [New Advent]

It’s been the name Lutheran longer than any other name. If Luther preferred evangelical, why then wasn’t that the name used by everyone in that sect who was Lutheran? And why didn’t they drop the name Lutheran?

 

[po18guy]

OK you certain pro-Luther-at-all-costs members - forget about the Catholic view, as you likely don’t believe it anyway. You are exercising the free will that a certain “reformer” denied that we possess!

So, way back when the proto-Lutherans sought a religious/political alliance to discredit//defeat/destroy Rome, what did the Orthodox think of the “reformers”? From an Orthodox Priest:

Early Lutherans and the Greek Church – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

 

[guanophore]

I really am waiting!

You are waiting for yourself to give a reason why you claim to be so well versed in the Catechism but are not referring to it when having dialogue with Catholics?

It’s been the name Lutheran longer than any other name. If Luther preferred evangelical, why then wasn’t that the name used by everyone in that sect who was Lutheran? And why didn’t they drop the name Lutheran?

Like Roman Catholics, they adopted the pejorative that was used against them and embraced it. But modern Lutherans don’t follow Luther, They have their own foundations, informed by Luther, but they reject some of his writings as germaine to the theology of salvation.

 

[steve-b]

And every single division has its roots in Rome.

if you mean division “from” Rome, that’s probably fair to say. Don’t assume however, those divisions are without consequences to the ones who divide. Scripture and Tradition answer that.

JonNC:

And of course, it doesn’t really matter since Unam Sanctam teaches “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff“, so it really doesn’t matter.

Jon,

you know the answer to this already. I’ve shown you the name of the Church (all properly referenced) , from the 1st century, has been the Catholic Church. It’s the only Church Jesus established on Peter and those in union with him. And it’s here today with Pope Francis 266th successor to St Peter in Rome at the helm. No other organization on the planet qualifies for this. I’ve shown you many times already, with Scripture and Tradition, properly referenced, as in it comes from Jesus and His Church documents, that division from this Church is condemned and has always been condemned and will always be condemned. Since Jesus insists on Perfect Unity AND Jesus said the HS who inspires all, only speaks what He hears from Jesus meaning then NO ONE, can say the HS inspired THEM to divide from Our Lord’s Church. If they do claim that, they are liars.

as you know, I don’t subscribe to fake ecumenism.

 

[JonNC]

if you mean division “from” Rome, that’s probably fair to say. Don’t assume however, those divisions are without consequences to the ones who divide. Scripture and Tradition answer that.

Including those in Rome who have been partners in division.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

if you mean division “from” Rome, that’s probably fair to say. Don’t assume however, those divisions are without consequences to the ones who divide. Scripture and Tradition answer that.

Including those in Rome who have been partners in division.

Do you have “who” you’re referring to?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

steve-b:

if you mean division “from” Rome, that’s probably fair to say. Don’t assume however, those divisions are without consequences to the ones who divide. Scripture and Tradition answer that.

Including those in Rome who have been partners in division.

Do you have “who” you’re referring to?

The Magisterium. Certainly not Catholic laity.
But I would think you would agree, since you think Catholic hierarchy is involved in “fake ecumenism “. No?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

JonNC:

steve-b:

if you mean division “from” Rome, that’s probably fair to say. Don’t assume however, those divisions are without consequences to the ones who divide. Scripture and Tradition answer that.

Including those in Rome who have been partners in division.

Do you have “who” you’re referring to?

The Magisterium. Certainly not Catholic laity.
But I would think you would agree, since you think Catholic hierarchy is involved in “fake ecumenism “. No?

Jon

To clarify, your point was,
"Including those in Rome who have been partners in division".

Since ecumenism is to promote unity not division, It’s something the Church has been involved in from the beginning.

that said

While I’m not a fan of squishy (fake) ecumenism, I don’t think that those who are squishy in their approach, intend to advance or partner in division. Unity is still the goal

Therefore, the question is still open

"who" are “those in Rome who have been partners in division”

 

[JonNC]

Jon

To clarify, your point was,
"Including those in Rome who have been partners in division".

Since ecumenism is to promote unity not division, It’s something the Church has been involved in from the beginning.

that said

While I’m not a fan of squishy (fake) ecumenism, I don’t think that those who are squishy in their approach, intend to advance or partner in division. Unity is still the goal

My point was you’ve voiced an inferred distrust of Vatican ecumenical practices. I am happy to read that we share the goal of unity, and a unity based doctrinal agreement, not compromise.
As I’m now continuing Anglican, I see the greatest issue the claim of universal jurisdiction. Fix that, and unity seems possible.

While the following article is about Orthodox and Rome, it’s basis could be applied to western communions similar to mine, ISTM.

St John Paul II invited Catholics and other Christians to reflect together on how the bishop of Rome might exercise a form of servant leadership in a future, reunited Church. Joseph Ratzinger, as a theologian and then (more tentatively) as pope, opined that more could not be asked of the East than was granted in the First Millennium.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...nt-is-a-landmark-but-theres-a-long-way-to-go/

 

[JonNC]

Therefore, the question is still open

"who" are “ those in Rome who have been partners in division ”

It started with the likes of Pope Leo X, Johan Eck, and others.

 

[MichaelP3]

You and me both. Lets leave to God from there!

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Jon

To clarify, your point was,
"Including those in Rome who have been partners in division".

Since ecumenism is to promote unity not division, It’s something the Church has been involved in from the beginning.

that said

While I’m not a fan of squishy (fake) ecumenism, I don’t think that those who are squishy in their approach, intend to advance or partner in division. Unity is still the goal

My point was you’ve voiced an inferred distrust of Vatican ecumenical practices.

The Vatican practice? No, it is at the bishop level, of “some” who are squishy.

JonNC:

I am happy to read that we share the goal of unity, and a unity based doctrinal agreement, not compromise.
As I’m now continuing Anglican, I see the greatest issue the claim of universal jurisdiction. Fix that, and unity seems possible.

Good grief Jon,

When Jesus gave Peter the keys, What part of the Church was Peter NOT over? Where did Jesus say to Peter, you have control over this part of the Church but not that part over there?

Your argument is from the views of schismatics. Objectively speaking, THEY are already screwed. How many times do they have to receive correction? Paul had such a low tolerance for the schismatic and heretical , he told Bp Titus to give them 2 warnings. After that, if they didn’t change, be DONE with them knowing THEY were gravely sinful and self condemned. WE have to assume Paul’s instruction to Titus, to do that came from the HS.

JonNC:

While the following article is about Orthodox and Rome, it’s basis could be applied to western communions similar to mine, ISTM.

How?

JonNC:

St John Paul II invited Catholics and other Christians to reflect together on how the bishop of Rome might exercise a form of servant leadership in a future, reunited Church. Joseph Ratzinger, as a theologian and then (more tentatively) as pope, opined that more could not be asked of the East than was granted in the First Millennium.

All that was offered at the time. It was suggested that the office of pope today, would be viewed as it was in the 1st millenium. Guess what? No response. The Orthodox knew how much authority the pope has always had. Even going back to the 1st millenium.

BTW, this argument already took place before the “Orthodox” were even a thought.

And I, showed this to you before
steve to Jon

Maybe you wish I was Paul, who only warned people twice