Apostolic Succession necessary for sacraments?

[FireDragon76]

Just my personal little point of view, but I've been able to integrate my prior experience with Orthodoxy with the blessing of my priest.

It should certainly be permissible to believe that God can indeed impart grace through the reception of Communion in various denominations (indeed, I have heard this taught). I know myself I have received it before I ever heard of Orthodoxy.

But I don't tell myself that what was consecrated/given/received broadly in that fellowship IS the Eucharist, as we understand it. If that were the case, some congregations I've been in would be guilty of terrible blasphemy, throwing it in the garbage, letting it fall to the floor and stepping on it, and children even pelting each other with it.

Why not? Christ came into the world to be trampled on by sinners. He rebuked Peter for telling him he was too good to be crucified. This is at the heart of the Theology of the Cross. Christ is not unwilling to be unthinkingly thrown in the garbage or tossed down the waste disposal. He's not above that. Shocking, horrifying, but that is the same truth that save us.

What "Lutheran Monk" has described as the Lutheran view of Apostolic Succession isn't what every other church that claims Apostolic Succession means by the term.

This would seem to me to be something that has to be resolved before heading deeper into this subject, LizaMarie.

I don't even think that is the "Lutheran view" of apostolic succession. As far as I know, we don't believe it is a defining mark of the Church in the way the Orthodox do.

Wherever Christians gather around the Word and Sacrament, the Church is there. It may be a bad church, it may teach errors, but Christ is present. That is how Lutherans understand the Church.

Make no mistake, the Orthodox believe they are the "one True Church", there is no way to mince that. At best we are playing "Let's pretend to be a church".

 

[klutedavid]

one adheres to the Truth of Christ, the others don't.

There is a one in a thousand chance that your correct.

How come most people I converse with always belong to the one true church?

I do not recognize the physical churches as representing the true church.

It appears that there is one universal, spiritual church, that has existed since Christ.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Wherever Christians gather around the Word and Sacrament, the Church is there. It may be a bad church, it may teach errors, but Christ is present. That is how Lutherans understand the Church.

Make no mistake, the Orthodox believe they are the "one True Church", there is no way to mince that. At best we are playing "Let's pretend to be a church".

neither the Scripture or Christian history are as minimalist or broad about what the Church is.

and none of us would say that the heterodox are at best "playing anything."

 

[ArmyMatt]

There is a one in a thousand chance that your correct.

How come most people I converse with always belong to the one true church?

because Christ only established one body, and most are honest enough to believe it. there is no reason for most Christians to be in their denominations unless they believed it to be true. the point is that just because they believe it is true, that doesn't make it so. Truth is not relative.

I do not recognize the physical churches as representing the true church.

It appears that there is one universal, spiritual church, that has existed since Christ.

this is neither Biblical, nor historic. there is no spiritual Church that just floats around as a concept in the ether somewhere.

 

[AMM]

I don't even think that is the "Lutheran view" of apostolic succession. As far as I know, we don't believe it is a defining mark of the Church in the way the Orthodox do.

Wherever Christians gather around the Word and Sacrament, the Church is there. It may be a bad church, it may teach errors, but Christ is present. That is how Lutherans understand the Church.

I encourage you to read this article on Apostolic Succession. Lutherans do not reject such a concept, as they do not see themselves as a new church, but rather the Western Catholic Church purged of papal errors.
“Why The Apostolic Succession Debate Matters,” by the Rev. Heath R. Curtis

The Church, as the bride of Christ, is created from the side of Christ -- the water and blood which flows at the Crucifixion, in the same way that Eve is created from the side of Adam. John tells us that Water, Blood, and Spirit all testify to the same thing, that is the Church. Baptism, the Eucharist, and the Holy Spirit (note Pentecost) all create and sustain the Church, but it's not as simplistic as that. For example, what if a group does not truly have Baptism or the Eucharist? If we corrupt doctrine, we corrupt Christ, for doctrine is the Word of God restated in our own words, and the Word of God is Christ. At some point, enough error and enough corrupted doctrine means we have a different Christ. And at that point, where two or three are gathered in Christ's name, he will say "I never knew you", and they will not recognize him, for their teaching of Christ will have become so corrupt.

 

[FireDragon76]

I encourage you to read this article on Apostolic Succession. Lutherans do not reject such a concept, as they do not see themselves as a new church, but rather the Western Catholic Church purged of papal errors.
“Why The Apostolic Succession Debate Matters,” by the Rev. Heath R. Curtis

The Church, as the bride of Christ, is created from the side of Christ -- the water and blood which flows at the Crucifixion, in the same way that Eve is created from the side of Adam. John tells us that Water, Blood, and Spirit all testify to the same thing, that is the Church. Baptism, the Eucharist, and the Holy Spirit (note Pentecost) all create and sustain the Church, but it's not as simplistic as that. For example, what if a group does not truly have Baptism or the Eucharist? If we corrupt doctrine, we corrupt Christ, for doctrine is the Word of God restated in our own words, and the Word of God is Christ. At some point, enough error and enough corrupted doctrine means we have a different Christ. And at that point, where two or three are gathered in Christ's name, he will say "I never knew you", and they will not recognize him, for their teaching of Christ will have become so corrupt.

Do you guys really believe your doctrines are equal to the Word of God? That's a new one I've never heard preached at our pulpits.

I'm only familiar with Pr. Jonathan Fisk in the LCMS and I've never heard him say that those outside the LCMS are outside the Church or that they worship a false Christ.

Of course, my denomination, the ELCA, is another thing altogether.

I don't believe in apostolic succession. I just stick to the Bible, I believe that is sufficient as a norm for Christian faith. Of course it came to us through a traditioning process but that doesn't mean I accept Orthodox or Catholic notions of what that means necessarily. We can read the Bible and learn we are a sinner, that Christ is the Savior and that is sufficient to have faith in him and to be saved.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Do you guys really believe your doctrines are equal to the Word of God? That's a new one I've never heard preached at our pulpits.

I'm only familiar with Pr. Jonathan Fisk in the LCMS and I've never heard him say that those outside the LCMS are outside the Church or that they worship a false Christ.

Of course, my denomination, the ELCA, is another thing altogether.

I don't believe in apostolic succession. I just stick to the Bible, I believe that is sufficient as a norm for Christian faith. Of course it came to us through a traditioning process but that doesn't mean I accept Orthodox or Catholic notions of what that means necessarily. We can read the Bible and learn we are a sinner, that Christ is the Savior and that is sufficient to have faith in him and to be saved.

well, doctrine comes before Scripture. Pentecost happened, then a generation happened before even the first words of the NT was penned. clearly the Bible alone is not sufficient for the Christian faith, because some of the Apostles, to include Sts James and Stephen, were martyred before the written NT.

 

[FireDragon76]

well, doctrine comes before Scripture. Pentecost happened, then a generation happened before even the first words of the NT was penned. clearly the Bible alone is not sufficient for the Christian faith, because some of the Apostles, to include Sts James and Stephen, were martyred before the written NT.

Lutherans do not believe you actually need the Bible to be saved. But we regard it as containing everything normative about the Christian faith in terms of doctrinal content. Which is why we don't accept much of Roman theology.

Karl Barth was once asked to summarize all his theology, and he said "Jesus loves me, this I know / for the Bible tells me so". That's good enough for me, and I've known that since I was a child. I did not need a Pope or Patriarch to tell me that was something I should believe.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Lutherans do not believe you actually need the Bible to be saved. But we regard it as containing everything normative about the Christian faith in terms of doctrinal content. Which is why we don't accept much of Roman theology.

Karl Barth was once asked to summarize all his theology, and he said "Jesus loves me, this I know / for the Bible tells me so". That's good enough for me, and I've known that since I was a child. I did not need a Pope or Patriarch to tell me that was something I should believe.

yes you do, because the Apostles were the first bishops who wrote the NT, and it was multiple synods of bishops (including Popes and Patriarchs) who codified and put together the New with the Old Testament. and they knew this because of what was verified through the years by earlier Popes and Patriarchs.

so, yeah you do need them, because the Gospel would not exist without them.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Why not? Christ came into the world to be trampled on by sinners. He rebuked Peter for telling him he was too good to be crucified. This is at the heart of the Theology of the Cross. Christ is not unwilling to be unthinkingly thrown in the garbage or tossed down the waste disposal. He's not above that. Shocking, horrifying, but that is the same truth that save us.

Christ came to the earth, became man, was crucified. It is finished.

What can be gained now by trampling Him underfoot or tossing Him in the garbage? Scripture even mentions such a thing by way of metaphor in Hebrews, and the end is that those people have no way left to be saved - Christ was crucified once for all. Trampling His blood underfoot left them with no further source of salvation. So I hardly think it's a course to recommend.

Besides, Christ was willing for sinners to treat Him so, in order to save mankind. Those who profess His name should know better.

(But the fact is, thankfully and mercifully. It is not the Eucharist, they don't believe it to be, so ... as I said, it's a mercy in that case.)

 

[FireDragon76]

yes you do, because the Apostles were the first bishops who wrote the NT, and it was multiple synods of bishops (including Popes and Patriarchs) who codified and put together the New with the Old Testament. and they knew this because of what was verified through the years by earlier Popes and Patriarchs.

so, yeah you do need them, because the Gospel would not exist without them.

Why do we need them? Are you saying God's word is not effecacious to do what it promises? Such as in John 3:16?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why do we need them? Are you saying God's word is not effecacious to do what it promises? Such as in John 3:16?

if we didn't need them Scripture wouldn't give their qualifications, and you are not addressing that the Scripture would not exist without them. and again, Christ called His Apostles to be bishops before He inspired them to start writing.

 

[LizaMarie]

What "Lutheran Monk" has described as the Lutheran view of Apostolic Succession isn't what every other church that claims Apostolic Succession means by the term.

This would seem to me to be something that has to be resolved before heading deeper into this subject, LizaMarie.

Yes I do realize that. The Lutheran church likely does not have Apostolic Succession, as the Church I belong to (WELS) has no bishops.

 

[Albion]

That's right. But the Church of Sweden never gave up their bishops from before the Reformation; they just said "You're all Lutherans now. Carry on."

And of course the ELCA switched to bishops in Apostolic Succession when they made their compact with The Episcopal Church a few years ago.

However, the use of the term as Lutheran Monk explained it is simply not what everyone else means by it.

 

[FireDragon76]

Apostolic succesion of bishops was controversial in the ELCA. Many accepted it only as an accommodation to working with Episcopalians. We do not accept it as a de fide doctrine of the faith, as something essential to the Church's mission.

 

[FireDragon76]

if we didn't need them Scripture wouldn't give their qualifications, and you are not addressing that the Scripture would not exist without them. and again, Christ called His Apostles to be bishops before He inspired them to start writing.

Christ never told his apostles to become bishops of a particular hierarchical organization. This is a human custom.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Christ never told his apostles to become bishops of a particular hierarchical organization. This is a human custom.

except the rest of the NT says otherwise. Christ also never told His Apostles to write the Gospels or the Epistles either.