doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
I'm that sometimes, too.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Francine
Well-Known Member
Rome has declared Anglican Holy Orders null and void, so presumably, if Lutherans are grafted in, they inherit this nullity.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I don't think it's possible to have apostolic succession without apostles.
Francine
Well-Known Member
By the same token, I don't think it's possible to have an Aaronic Priesthood without animal sacrifices.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Well, you're wrong then; you're also off-topic and starting to look very much like a troll.
Francine
Well-Known Member
Since when is a counterargument in the debate section of RF a "troll" ?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Since this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with the Aaronic Priesthood.
Your constant one-liners against Mormonism are getting tiresome, that's all. If you want to engage in a debate about the validity of the Aaronic Priesthood in the LDS Church, why don't you start a new thread. Sarcasm's easy, Francine. Why not make an actual attempt at communicating with the Mormons on RF for a change?
Smoke
Done here.
Okay, let's pretend I think Christianity is true. If Christianity is true, there must necessarily be a continuous Christian community going back to the time of the apostles. Apostolic succession is a sign and token of the continuity of community.
When I was Orthodox, I would have said that the Roman Catholics lost apostolic succession when they lost their unity with the Orthodox Church. For the Orthodox, apostolic succession only exists within the unity of the Orthodox Faith. (There are, however, Orthodox who would disagree.)
There is no doubt that the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican churches, and some Protestants have an unbroken succession of bishops going back, as far as we can reasonably tell, to the early days of Christianity. Since these are mutually-exclusive hierarchies for the most part, there has to be more to it that just that.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Either that, or a broken line would have to have been restored by the same individual who appointed the original apostles.
Francine
Well-Known Member
You introduced a point that a tradition which does not have true apostles ought not make claims of apostolicity. My counterexample asserts the equal dubiousness of claims of priesthood without the sacrificial elements marking true priests.
Because even my invitations to debate (which must occur outside of the DIR area) are somehow taken as trollish and resulted in some very unfortunate events last night. For some reason, mutual respect has completely broken down. And even this exchange here with you violates a vow I made to someone last night, but perhaps it will suffice to break it off here.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
You might as well have been arguing what qualifies a person to be a Christian. If you think I'm wrong, and that it's possible to have apostolic succession without apostles, why don't you just explain your reasoning.
Francine, you've vowed never to talk to the Mormons here on about a half-dozen occasions already. You don't seem to have much of a problem talking about us, though. I'd bet my paycheck that you're not going to "break it off here," any more than you've broken it off at any time since you first said you were going to.
happ
Catholic/Evagelical
:biglaugh:
what's really funny is that for most Lutherans in the U.S. the apostolic succession is basically a non-priority but it is very important to Episcopalians. I remember that a few seminarians tried to dodge the inclusion of the Episcopal diocese bishop laying on hands during ordination and some were even ordained without a Lutheran bishop present.
Historical continuity is questionable but the reality of a line of apostles is intriguing & very meaningful to Christians who stay grounded in the ancient Church.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No they can't. They can get back early, but not all the way.
(BTW, Orthodox also claim the early bishops as their bishops. So do the Anglicans. don't be so exclusive.)
The Church historically grew up on multiple tracks. The relatively brief convergence during Constantine was, IMO an abberation. (Plus, there were some groups that never converged).
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
It has no Apostles. You can't have apostolic succession without having apostles. Bishops are not apostles.
Wrong. From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
1: one sent on a mission: as a: one of an authoritative New Testament group sent out to preach the gospel and made up especially of Christ's 12 original disciples and Paul b: the first prominent Christian missionary to a region or group 2 a: a person who initiates a great moral reform or who first advocates an important belief or system b: an ardent supporter 3: the highest ecclesiastical official in some church organizations4: one of a Mormon administrative council of 12 men :yes:
No they don't. Mine didn't.
Can you name even one Apostle who served with the first Pope? And can you give me any specific evidence to prove that the first Pope was ordained by Peter or any of the other Apostles?
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
I have to agree with what Smoke said here:
It is highly important to me, for my church membership, that I belong to a tradition that stands in formal and historically delineated continuity with the ancient Christian Church. It is not the Catholic teaching that the Catholic Church governed by Rome alone has valid orders- we acknowledge the Orthodox.
For me it is a question of sacramental and ecclessiological integrity. The sacraments- the very communication of the life of the Church- are not inventions of the Church, nor does the Church call herself into existence by her own authority. Any such institution is an assembly of Christians- but not a "Church".
This is not a problem for the majority of Protestants, who don't really have a sacramental understanding of the Church. For those who do, I tend not to engage in debate about their validity. It does prevent me, however, from recieving communion in non-Catholic Churches.
It is highly important to me, for my church membership, that I belong to a tradition that stands in formal and historically delineated continuity with the ancient Christian Church. It is not the Catholic teaching that the Catholic Church governed by Rome alone has valid orders- we acknowledge the Orthodox.
For me it is a question of sacramental and ecclessiological integrity. The sacraments- the very communication of the life of the Church- are not inventions of the Church, nor does the Church call herself into existence by her own authority. Any such institution is an assembly of Christians- but not a "Church".
This is not a problem for the majority of Protestants, who don't really have a sacramental understanding of the Church. For those who do, I tend not to engage in debate about their validity. It does prevent me, however, from recieving communion in non-Catholic Churches.
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
As to Katzpur's point about "Apostles", I can only say as a Catholic that the requirement you lay out occurs nowhere in the great traditions of historic Christianity. It simply was never a requirement, as far as we can tell from any ancient Christian literature, that we actually have persons labelled "Apostles". It is, from our point of view, quite an arbitrary criteria.
We do, however, have Ignatius from the early second century saying that "where is the bishop there is the Catholic Church" and that only there is there a valid celebration of the Christian mysteries.
We do, however, have Ignatius from the early second century saying that "where is the bishop there is the Catholic Church" and that only there is there a valid celebration of the Christian mysteries.
Last edited:
Smoke
Done here.
That is not, in fact, the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
Ultra,
Do you understand the Pauline notion of the Body of Christ? In the New Testament, there is a teaching authority and it is not given to everyone. This does not mean we all can not evangelize.
Do you understand the Pauline notion of the Body of Christ? In the New Testament, there is a teaching authority and it is not given to everyone. This does not mean we all can not evangelize.