Apostolic Succession (Jesus, priests, Kingdom, tradition, beliefs)

[Grocery Bag]

I am very confused about the whole concept of apostolic succession. Several religions have versions of apostolic succession and they all claim to have the right understanding and consequently to have the true succession in their church. But that can't possibly be true; they can't all have the right one!

Can anyone explain the apostolic succession of their church and explain why that is the right and true succession?

[Aqualung]

Well, let me first say why we need apostolic succession in the first place. First of all, we need apostles because somebody needs to hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven. For example, in Matt 16:19 Jesus specifically tells his apostles he will give them the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Mark 3:14 says that he ordained twelve, meaning he gave them certain things that the general person did not have. Luke 6:13 says pretty much the same thing, except it clearifies that he called them apostles. and John 15:16 says "ye have not chosen me, but I have chose you," which clearifies the heavenly authority they have. Okay, so Jesus set up his apostles on his own. It must have been importatnt if he did all that. Another way one sees that it is so important is that after Judas Killed himself, they bothered to fill that spot in. They already had eleven other apostles. Why bother with another one if it didn't matter? And they prayed about it. They didn't just choose him, but Jesus did. Once again, like John 15:16.

Acts 12:28 shows that Paul knew there were apostles in the church. "And God hath set some in teh church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that..." So Paul saw that there were apostles in the church.

Eph 2:20 says the church is founded upon the foundation of prophets and apostles. If you take away the foundation, can a building stand? No.
4:11 says about the same thing.

[Dayv]

To me it's like having a country club were the only people let in are of surtain decent, and everybody in this country club thinks they are above everyone else because of this stupid, mindless idea, while the people on the outside (hopefully) realize that it doesn't amount to crap.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Grocery Bag

Can anyone explain the apostolic succession of their church and explain why that is the right and true succession?

Pretty good discussion of it here: Apostolic succession

[Francine]

Originally Posted by Dayv

To me it's like having a country club were the only people let in are of surtain decent, and everybody in this country club thinks they are above everyone else because of this stupid, mindless idea, while the people on the outside (hopefully) realize that it doesn't amount to crap.

Usually the people who call Apostolic Succession "sour grapes" are the ones who belong to a sect that broke from the Apostolic Succession. The nature of the doctrine is such that even the smallest break from apostolicity is permanent. That automatically assures that those who retain the Apostolic Succession belong to a tradition that never broke from the original teachings of Christ.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Francine

Usually the people who call Apostolic Succession "sour grapes" are the ones who belong to a sect that broke from the Apostolic Succession.

Of course, there's a lot of variations on the precise details of the "succession." In mainstream Christianity this notion of needing "succession" is so ingrained that splinter groups almost invariably require a succession mythology. I think they are all made up stories to compete with one another for "official authority" - including the Roman Catholic version, which simply has the advantage of being the most established and still common of the earliest rounds of this silly "authority" wrangling.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

Well, let me first say why we need apostolic succession in the first place. First of all, we need apostles because somebody needs to hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

This is where a number of us who think that Apostolic Succession is a bunch of hoooey disagree with. Once the door was opened, the keys became USELESS. Think about it... who is able to keep me from my God, my Lord and my Christ? NO ONE!

Romans 8:38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. NIV

It's like closing the barn door AFTER all of the horses have run out.

Then there is their supposed need for a "head". The church has only ONE HEAD, and it ain't human!

Ephesians 1:18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23w hich is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. NIV

We never had a human head of the church: only Jesus!

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Francine

Usually the people who call Apostolic Succession "sour grapes" are the ones who belong to a sect that broke from the Apostolic Succession. The nature of the doctrine is such that even the smallest break from apostolicity is permanent. That automatically assures that those who retain the Apostolic Succession belong to a tradition that never broke from the original teachings of Christ.

I notice that the support for Apostolic Succession in gets kinda fuzzy in the first few centuries of Chrisitianity, regardless of denomination.

So... if it happened even once in the history of the church that a single bishop was not validly ordained, the entire line of ordinations that flowed from him (e.g. the bishops he ordained, the ones they ordained and so on, plus all the priests that all those bishops ordained) would be completely invalid.

How many bishops have there been? I can't help but think that the chances that there would have never been any sort of error or wilful act that would have invalidated even one of those ordinations would be amazingly remote.

When this first occured to me, I realized that I could apply Pascal's Wager-style logic to the question of whether to treat the Eucharist as the literal body of Christ and come up with a result that I don't think the Church would appreciate (is it Christ or not? If the man at the altar's not a priest, it's not... and if he wasn't ordained by a valid bishop in the line of Apostolic Succession, he's not a priest).

Going back to something you said, though: I'm not sure why you think Apostolic Succession would ensure that a church never broke from the teachings of Christ. Plenty can happen over the years, even when you have an unbroken line of succession. Appointing a successor doesn't automatically mean that the successor will have the same beliefs and opinions as you do - you're dealing with people, not robots.

[Francine]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Appointing a successor doesn't automatically mean that the successor will have the same beliefs and opinions as you do - you're dealing with people, not robots.

Your statement would be true if it was purely a human endeavor. But Holy Orders is a sacrament of the Church, and the Holy Spirit is the active ingredient.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Francine

Your statement would be true if it was purely a human endeavor. But Holy Orders is a sacrament of the Church, and the Holy Spirit is the active ingredient.