After the Apostles

[GodsGrace101]

All the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Old Catholic churches, the various Anglican churches, a number of Independent Catholic churches, the national Lutheran churches of Scandinavia, and the largest of the Lutheran denominations in the USA, among others.

Lutheran churches ..... from Luther.
Luther broke away from the CC...
That's a schism.
Catholicism was what was broken away from...
so the line was broken.

 

[GodsGrace101]

More correctly, it is both Catholic and Protestant. Most Anglicans know that and more or less take it for granted.

Agreed.

True, but neither did he found the Anglican churches or any other church body. People often aren't well informed on that score.

Agreed.

That idea is just fundamentally wrong. All lines of succession come through bishops. Some churches with Apostolic Succession (the smaller ones) may have broken from the Roman Church's jurisdiction at some point in the past, but that doesn't make the line of succession be "through the Pope."

What I'm reading here seems to be a view that is formed entirely through Roman Catholic sources and contentions, not actual history. I didn't perceive the earlier posts as being of that sort, but if it's so I am sorry that the discussion has run into this impasse.

I've already corrected myself in that succession is through BISHOPS.
If a group breaks away from the main church,,,,that group has lost succession.

Some group has broken away from the Assembly of God church in a city here...are they still an Assembly of God church?
No.

If you don't think I'm quoting actual history,,,that is your prerogative.

 

[Albion]

Lutheran churches ..... from Luther.
Luther broke away from the CC...
That's a schism.

The question was about churches having Apostolic Succession.

Catholicism was what was broken away from...
so the line was broken.

No, it wasn't.

And not even the Roman Catholic Church takes the position that being in schism means that Apostolic Succession has therefore been broken.

For example, the Roman Catholic Church freely admits that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have valid Apostolic Succession, even while considering them (rightly or wrongly) to be in schism. And when the Union of Utrecht, the Old Catholics, broke from the RCC over the latter's creation of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, their churches retained Apostolic Succession--or such is the view of the Roman Catholic Church.

However, it is necessary to know the history of these lines of succession and the history of the churches involved in order to understand the issue.

 

[Albion]

I've already corrected myself in that succession is through BISHOPS.
If a group breaks away from the main church,,,,that group has lost succession.

Then you need to "correct yourself" on this point also. It is wrong in several respects.

Some group has broken away from the Assembly of God church in a city here...are they still an Assembly of God church?
No.

No, but that has nothing to do with what we were discussing. None of the churches I identified claims to be the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[DamianWarS]

After the death of John in around 100AD there were no more of the original apostles to inform and guide the church. That must have felt like a bit of a vacuum to many in the church. But the second century was a crucial stage in the formation of the church and it grew through that period.

I am interested in how the church met the challenges of heresy (e.g. Gnostics and Marcionites) and persecution (e.g. Trajan and Marcus Aurelius), agreed in practice on a canon for scripture and on basic doctrines, continued to spread the good news and built the hierarchies and institutional structures that have survived to this day e.g. the papacy, the bishops

What were the crucial moments in the decisions about which scriptures were authoritative and which not from this period?

How were the debates about who Jesus was resolved?

What doctrines were broadly agreed by this time e.g. apostles creed?

Who were the crucial personalities involved and which do you think had the biggest impact. For instance who made the most significant impact out of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smynra, Ireneaus of Lyons?

EDIT: changed key heresy from Ebionite to Marcionite

here is an excellent book that covers just that
The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology

I personally found it very interesting and it didn't read like a history/theology book at all but it unpacks the backstories of it all very well, not just the history but the theology too and I found it did so in a neutral voice. It is an excellent book to learn where the church came from and how it wrestled and formed early doctrines and how it removed what it didn't like.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

After the death of John in around 100AD there were no more of the original apostles to inform and guide the church. That must have felt like a bit of a vacuum to many in the church.

A vacuum? I don't think so.
A lot of false teachings starting, a lot of anti-christs among them, yes , as written.
I don't think Jesus left His Sheep in a vacuum ever, do you ?
He told His Permanent Disciples that He would NEVER, not ever, no never, forsake them, even to the end of the earth, didn't He ?
And so, in perfect truth, in perfect harmony, with His Own Promise and all of His Word,
Jesus NEVER did forsake His permanent disciples, not in the first century, and not in the 21st century, nor ever in between.

 

[GodsGrace101]

The question was about churches having Apostolic Succession.


No, it wasn't.

And not even the Roman Catholic Church takes the position that being in schism means that Apostolic Succession has therefore been broken.

For example, the Roman Catholic Church freely admits that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have valid Apostolic Succession, even while considering them (rightly or wrongly) to be in schism. And when the Union of Utrecht, the Old Catholics, broke from the RCC over the latter's creation of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, their churches retained Apostolic Succession--or such is the view of the Roman Catholic Church.

However, it is necessary to know the history of these lines of succession and the history of the churches involved in order to understand the issue.

Not much to understand.
In about 1,500 the Protestant move was begun and separated itself from the Catholic Church.

So much so that many are just naturally against it.
You told me that if my history was inclined toward Catholicism then our conversation was over.

History is history....
Besides the story of the first being Peter,,,,I can't think of anything the CC has gotten wrong (about history).

 

[GodsGrace101]

Then you need to "correct yourself" on this point also. It is wrong in several respects.


No, but that has nothing to do with what we were discussing. None of the churches I identified claims to be the Roman Catholic Church.

Right.
And since the Catholic Church claims to be the only one with Apostolic succession....your response to me is valid.

 

[GodsGrace101]

At Nicea, all five church jurisdictions explicitly agreed that none of them would ever change the creed without the agreement of all the others. Then the church at Rome up and unilaterally changed it. Does that answer your question?

This is the reason the Orthodox church is the only church that the CC has respected...till now. I say till now because it seems this Pope wants to respect every church out there.

And, BTW, he is also doing something he's not supposed to be doing...changing doctrine he took an oath not to change when he became Pope.

Every new Pope takes an oath that he will not change any previous doctrine.

As to the filoque...it is much too deep for me to understand.
If the Holy Spirit is to have the same importance as the Son,,,then He should proceed from the Father...
But it's also explained that the Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son...thus He proceeds from both of them. Does this diminish Him? Love is important. love is present in the Godhead. I just don't know.

However, I'd have to agree with you that it should not have been changed.
(it was spoken of by the ECFs in this way, however).

 

[Albion]

History is history....
Besides the story of the first being Peter,,,,I can't think of anything the CC has gotten wrong (about history).

Right.
And since the Catholic Church claims to be the only one with Apostolic succession....your response to me is valid.

You really would do yourself a favor by looking into this further. Since a discussion here is impossible, ask your own religious leaders about what you've written here.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You really would do yourself a favor by looking into this further. Since a discussion here is impossible, ask your own religious leaders about what you've written here.

My religious leaders?!
You don't have to agree with all I say.
That doesn't make it wrong.

Discusssion over.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If a group breaks away from the main church,,,,that group has lost succession.

What of assemblies that seemingly if not actually spring up, grafted in the vine (which is Jesus), without ever having been a part of any error or other group ?
i.e. they don't break away as if departing from error, but are alive and well in Jesus
and
never had any association with error of any kind/ no false doctrines nor practices/ ?

 

[GodsGrace101]

What of assemblies that seemingly if not actually spring up, grafted in the vine (which is Jesus), without ever having been a part of any error or other group ?
i.e. they don't break away as if departing from error, but are alive and well in Jesus
and
never had any association with error of any kind/ no false doctrines nor practices/ ?

They're fine with me.
We were discussing succession.
This could only happen when there is an unbroken line from something or other.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence.
I think every church has error, false doctrine and/or practices.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

They're fine with me.
We were discussing succession.
This could only happen when there is an unbroken line from something or other.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence.
I think every church has error, false doctrine and/or practices.

As you are aware, every church you are aware of ,
is different or
does not include those ekklesia assemblies that are not abiding in error, false doctrine and/or false practices.

In Scripture somewhere, it is written when coming to a town/city, to LOOK FOR those who are not abiding in error, not teaching false doctrine, and /or false practices,
and to STAY with them, and not to keep moving around (as if to or with others).

One of Jesus' Promises, which cannot be changed nor broken,
is that those who seek truth, and keep seeking truth, will find it. (even though (or if) no one else they know at first does)

 

[GodsGrace101]

As you are aware, every church you are aware of ,
is different or
does not include those ekklesia assemblies that are not abiding in error, false doctrine and/or false practices.

In Scripture somewhere, it is written when coming to a town/city, to LOOK FOR those who are not abiding in error, not teaching false doctrine, and /or false practices,
and to STAY with them, and not to keep moving around (as if to or with others).

One of Jesus' Promises, which cannot be changed nor broken,
is that those who seek truth, and keep seeking truth, will find it. (even though (or if) no one else they know at first does)

If someone keeps looking for the truth, they will find it.
Trouble is, some persons think they know the truth and stop looking.
The disagreements between us Christians is disturbing to me.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If someone keeps looking for the truth, they will find it.
Trouble is, some persons think they know the truth and stop looking.
The disagreements between us Christians is disturbing to me.

You just now, willingly or wittingly or unwittingly (not knowing)
posted the reason why there are so many disagreements (a most polite way which disagreements includes slander, beatings, arrests, imprisonment, and martyrdom) ....

to wit: they "stop looking" ..... they are lied to and told they "know the truth" and are encouraged not to listen to anyone any more who may be speaking the truth they need, but they are encouraged not to listen to it, because it 'causes trouble' or exposes evil and wrong doing and false gospels. eh?

 

[GodsGrace101]

You just now, willingly or wittingly or unwittingly (not knowing)
posted the reason why there are so many disagreements (a most polite way which disagreements includes slander, beatings, arrests, imprisonment, and martyrdom) ....

to wit: they "stop looking" ..... they are lied to and told they "know the truth" and are encouraged not to listen to anyone any more who may be speaking the truth they need, but they are encouraged not to listen to it, because it 'causes trouble' or exposes evil and wrong doing and false gospels. eh?

I agree.
The N.T. tell us this...that in the end times some would fall away from the faith.
1 Timothy 4:1, 3

We should not trust any one person/preacher/priest....
We should be like the Bareans
Acts 17:11