Apistolic Succession

[Wisdom's Child]

Hello, back again with another question

I have a question on Apistolic Succession (if this is the proper term).

The Bible teaches in the Book of Acts, that each of the Apostles held positions of "Bishop" in the newly formed Church, essentially Patriarchs of an Apistolic line of Tradition.

I'm not totally sure but I think it goes something like this...
Peter is considered the Patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church,
James is the Patriarch of the Jerusalem Church,
Thomas is the Patriarch of the Egyptian Coptic Church,
etc...

Is there a complete listing of the Patriarchs and the Churches that they founded?

Is there still 12 lines of Apistolic Succession? or are there any "Dead Branches"?

God is So Great

 

[Rilian]

Apostolic succession came up not that long ago in another thread. I think it was called something like "where are the 12 apostles".

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

Apostolic succession came up not that long ago in another thread. I think it was called something like "where are the 12 apostles".

http://christianforums.com/t164544http://christianforums.com/t164544&highlight=alexandria

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

I would just like to say that the Patriarch in Alexandria is in succession of St. Mark.

http://www.greekorthodox-alexandria.org/main.htm

 

[Wisdom's Child]

Thank you, that thread was very enlightening.

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

Glad to help.

 

[Wisdom's Child]

If I could please get clarification on one point...

That's right. In the ancient church, there were five great bishoprics: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. Thus the Patriarchs in the four cities were deemed, by the Orthodox, to be equals with the Pope of Rome, except that the Pope was accorded primacy of honor.

I was under the impression that there was some anamosity or schism between The Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.
Am I misunderstanding something?

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

If I could please get clarification on one point...



I was under the impression that there was some anamosity or schism between The Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.
What is the issue here, or am I misreading something?

Sometimes I can be a bit slow, so I'm not sure if I'm answering your question when I say yes, there was a schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in 1054, and the schism has yet to have been healed.

 

[Wisdom's Child]

What was the issue that created this Schism?

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

What was the issue that created this Schism?

Oh there were a few. But the main two theological reasons were Papal supremacy, and the Roman Catholic addition to the Nicene Creed, which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son.

 

[Oblio]

You are correct, WC, Iacobus is speaking of prior to the Schism of 1054. In the beginning while the Bishop of Rome was equal to the others in Pastoral matters, he did have primacy of honor. This changed after the Schism, when the Bishop of Rome and those under him left the Church and formed a separate entity, forsaking the Concilliar Church government that had served (and still does in the East) till then.

 

[Suzannah]

Primarily, it was : the addition of the Filioque to the Nicene Creed, which was an addition made by Rome's patriarch, that stated that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father AND the SON, in place of the original wording that stated the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father . (period). Also, Rome's patriarch suddenly issued a decree that stated he was infallible and the Head of the Church, above all other bishops and patriarchs.
Essentially that was the cause.

 

[Wisdom's Child]

I too have to disagree about that point of the Nicene Creed, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but not from the Son, for He clearly stated "My Father shall send you a Comforter... "

 

[MariaRegina]

I too have to disagree about that point of the Nicene Creed, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but not from the Son, for He clearly stated "My Father shall send you a Comforter... "

This is exactly where the confusion lies.

"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life; who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the Prophets."

Interestingly this same quote from the original Nicene Creed is found in the Catholic Catechism because it comes from the original Nicean-Constantinople Creed.

This statement of believe in the Nicene Creed refers to the ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT FROM THE FATHER.

The Sending of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles at Pentecost is a TEMPORAL SENDING, a blessing upon us, when we are illuminated, enlightened and sanctified. This is not the same as the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father.

Do you see the difference?

THE TEMPORAL SENDING of the Holy Spirit has to do with OUR sanctification, illumination and enlightenment.

THE ETERNAL PROCESSION of the Holy Spirit from the Father has to do with the inner workings of the Most Holy Trinity. Incidentally, Jesus Christ is ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN of the Father. So, the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father, and the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.

To say that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and from the Son [filioque] is not scriptural as the Holy Scriptures say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Therefore, the Latin Church filioque addition is not scriptural. I think that our Catholic brothers will agree that neither an Ecumenical Council nor the Pope has the authority to change the Holy Scriptures, isn't this true?

Hope this helps.

Yours in Christ our God,
Elizabeth

 

[Matthias]

Perhaps.

 

[Matthias]

I still agree with Elizabeth though.

 

[Wisdom's Child]

Do you see the difference?

THE TEMPORAL SENDING of the Holy Spirit has to do with OUR sanctification, illumination and enlightenment.

THE ETERNAL PROCESSION of the Holy Spirit from the Father has to do with the inner workings of the Most Holy Trinity. Incidentally, Jesus Christ is ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN of the Father. So, the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father, and the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.

To say that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and from the Son [filioque] is not scriptural as the Holy Scriptures say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Therefore, the Latin Church filioque addition is not scriptural. I think that our Catholic brothers will agree that neither an Ecumenical Council nor the Pope has the authority to change the Holy Scriptures, isn't this true?

I am in agreeance, Elisabeth...

Amazingly though, because there are many protestants that would disagree because of a "tainted" (to be nice) view of the Godhead. You have added another piece to my puzzle.

Thank You