The Legitimacy of Apostolic Succession and the Christian Church

[Windwalker]

On that latter point, I find it interesting that a spiritual teacher who was at odds with the religious hierarchy of his day, now has great institutions operating in his name and claiming his authority.

It seems the natural course of things that innovation and movement forward, eventually gets subsumed back into the very thing it originally was created in order to transcend. It's a typical cycle:

Spiritual movement becomes a religion, which then spawns a spiritual movement to break from its shackles, which then itself becomes a religion, which then spawns another new movement to overcome that, and so forth. Eventually, the leading edge, becomes the mainstream and loses its edge. The cake rises, then settles back down into the middle again.

 

[PureX]

Institutions need this kind of personal and hierarchical succession to survive. It's how they maintain cohesion, order, and authority. But for myself, personally, I have no use for it. I do not perceive Christianity as an institutional phenomenon, nor any good coming from men presuming to be the representatives of God's mind and will to other men. So I reject all that.

But I recognize that these institutional systems are important to others and so am not antagonistic of them.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Most of them were artists living and working in an era when the only way an artist could make a living at art was with commissions to paint Christian religious subjects.

I know I'm left wondering how much art that might have been made by people like these ended up not being made because they lived in a time that repressed non-Christian thought and encouraged only Christian expression.

You should try not to let prejudice blind you to beauty.

Regardless of your opinions about Christianity, if you can look at Michaelangelo’s La Pieta and remain unmoved, then I am inclined to say you have no soul. Which would not be an insult, as I dare say you don’t think you have one anyway.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You should try not to let prejudice blind you to beauty.

Regardless of your opinions about Christianity, if you can look at Michaelangelo’s La Pieta and remain unmoved, then I am inclined to say you have no soul.

If you appreciate the art that Michaelangelo actually made, just imagine how much more magnificent his work could have been if it wasn't constrained by an oppressive religion.

Which would not be an insult, as I dare say you don’t think you have one anyway.

That's right. And I don't think you have one, either.

 

[firedragon]

You should try not to let prejudice blind you to beauty.

Regardless of your opinions about Christianity, if you can look at Michaelangelo’s La Pieta and remain unmoved, then I am inclined to say you have no soul. Which would not be an insult, as I dare say you don’t think you have one anyway.

There are some who just dont enjoy art. I find that really strange but they exist. And they do have a soul I believe.

But, other than that, what you say is absolutely true. Just out of bias we should not deny history. Its stupid to say that Christianity did not influence the renaissance and in extension the west.

And I must admit that there are many who are just simply bias. Even bigoted. Recently I was quoting a researcher and his findings and an atheist in this very forum just said 'its not acceptable because he is a christian'. Thats bigotry.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Wasn't it the nobility that maintained class distinctions resulting in widespread ignorance? My brief education told me that as the Byzantine empire broke up it was carved into pieces by great generals who then became kings and parceled land out to their lesser generals. The common people became property connected to the land to work it for these lords. In this way most of Europe became feudal Europe, a semi chaotic hierarchy of kings and vassals. I don't think it makes sense to blame this on the church. Its what the collapse of an empire looks like. The romans no longer controlled territory or maintained laws, so law fell into the hands of the strongest. Knowledge became dangerous and something to be reserved for upper classes.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If you appreciate the art that Michaelangelo actually made, just imagine how much more magnificent his work could have been if it wasn't constrained by an oppressive religion.



That's right. And I don't think you have one, either.

Michaelangelo wasn’t constrained by Christianity, he was quite clearly inspired by it. Some of the others that I mentioned were conflicted by it, but nevertheless inspired.

The point is that without Christianity there would have been no Sistine Chapel, no St Peter’s Basilica, no Notre Dame or St Paul’s Cathedral, nor the art within, no Paradise Lost (Milton), no Marriage of Heaven and Hell (Blake), no Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis nor Mozart’s Requiem.

Show me the great works of art that would not have existed were it not for atheism. You can have Shakespeare for the humanists if you like, though he very definitely did believe that men and women have souls.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Michaelangelo wasn’t constrained by Christianity, he was quite clearly inspired by it. Some of the others that I mentioned were conflicted by it, but nevertheless inspired.

Michaelangelo worked within Christianity, but since he wasn't free to work outside this framework, you're in no position to say that he would have chosen it if he had been free.

The point is that without Christianity there would have been no Sistine Chapel, no St Peter’s Basilica, no Notre Dame or St Paul’s Cathedral, nor the art within, no Paradise Lost (Milton), no Marriage of Heaven and Hell (Blake), no Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis nor Mozart’s Requiem.

Yes... since Roman times, Europe's governments and rulers siphoned the wealth from the people into Christian churches. Churches were the only ones with the money to build ornate cathedrals, to patronize the arts, or to found universities.

As a Christian, this is something that should be a point of shame for you, not a point of pride. The Christian establishment you're praising was built on graft and theft.

 

[lukethethird]

In this thread I'd like to explore the legitimacy of Apostolic succession within Christendom. It's an important topic that relates to the succession of leadership and authority derived from the Ministry of Christ Himself. Those whom Christ appointed as Apostles were commissioned to carry on His Work The legitimacy of the Catholic Church, the largest denomination within Christianity, is derived in part from the unbroken succession of Bishops or Popes from St Peter's appointment by Christ to the current Pope Francis.

Different Churches will recognize different bishops and lines of succession, not necessarily recognizing the traditions within other churches. Such lines of succession arguably play a vital role in maintaining the continuity of leadership but also promoting unity.

Beyond Apostolic succession there are parallels within other faith communities where succession of leaders is recognized and the unity of the community is either strengthened or weakened.

So how important is Apostolic succession within Christianity? What parallels, if any, can be found in other Faith traditions?

Apostolic succession can be traced back to the 4th century, prior to that it's sketchy.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Michaelangelo worked within Christianity, but since he wasn't free to work outside this framework, you're in no position to say that he would have chosen it if he had been free.


Yes... since Roman times, Europe's governments and rulers siphoned the wealth from the people into Christian churches. Churches were the only ones with the money to build ornate cathedrals, to patronize the arts, or to found universities.

As a Christian, this is something that should be a point of shame for you, not a point of pride. The Christian establishment you're praising was built on graft and theft.

You think Michaelangelo would have been a better artist were it not for the Church? The church stopped possibly the greatest artist in European history from truly expressing himself? Really?


And I should be ashamed because the Catholic Church funded Cathedrals and Universities?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You think Michaelangelo would have been a better artist were it not for the Church?

I think he would have been at least as good if he lived in an era with freedom of religion.

The church stopped possibly the greatest artist in European history from truly expressing himself? Really?

I think it certainly constrained his expression.

It's not like the Vatican would have paid him commissions to express, say, themes from Greek mythology or artwork without religious themes.

And I should be ashamed because the Catholic Church funded Cathedrals and Universities?

You should be ashamed that they did it with stolen money, and that they stole so much money over so long a period that nobody else had the financial means to found universities.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think he would have been at least as good if he lived in an era with freedom of religion.


I think it certainly constrained his expression.

It's not like the Vatican would have paid him commissions to express, say, themes from Greek mythology or artwork without religious themes.


You should be ashamed that they did it with stolen money, and that they stole so much money over so long a period that nobody else had the financial means to found universities.

As an atheist, are you ashamed of the 20 million Russians and Ukrainians murdered by Stalin?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As an atheist, are you ashamed of the 20 million Russians and Ukrainians murdered by Stalin?

If you think the mere fact that Stalin and I both don't accept your worldview is enough to mean that we share a worldview, then I suggest you stop and reflect on your prejudice and chauvinism.

 

[Kenny]

Wait - did you just compare Christianity to the Nazi party?

nope - Christianity is a majority not a minority

 

[metis]

So how important is Apostolic succession within Christianity?

Depending on where attends services in Christianity, it varies. But at least in today's world, most denominations don't take it to the point that if you belong to X denomination you're going to hell in a handbasket.

OTOH, there in reality is no doubt, or at least shouldn't be based on the overwhelming evidence, that Jesus started an organization that was meant to go on long after he was gone.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

nope - Christianity is a majority not a minority

Ah. I thought you were going for some sort of "most Nazis and most Christians are good people; it's the bad ones who gave the whole group a bad name" kind of point.

Apparently not, though.

 

[Vouthon]

Michaelangelo worked within Christianity, but since he wasn't free to work outside this framework, you're in no position to say that he would have chosen it if he had been free.

I find the conjectural and alternate-historical basis of your argument very unsatisfying.

The simple fact of the matter is that Christianity was, at the time of Michaelangelo and through the institutional framework of the Catholic Church of his era, a major patron of the arts.

And not only was it a major patron, one could equally argue that the devotion which a man like Michaelangelo had for his religion - the extent to which the grief of the Virgin Mary over her crucified son as she cradled him in her arms, mattered immensely to him, precisely because it was an article of faith and something quite obviously evoking strong emotion in him as a sculptor, hence his sculpting it at all in such exquisite detail in the first place - was absolutely essential to the Pietà as the genius work of art that it is, because it is a profoundly religious and affective sculpture.

Yes, we have no idea what he might have done in a different sociocultural-intellect context and milieu - but that's the same for every other artist living at every other time in every other context. All we can do is work with the piece of art that we have, arising from the artist working on it as understood against the background of what influenced and patronized him/her in his his/her given time and place.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find the conjectural and alternate-historical basis of your argument very unsatisfying.

The simple fact of the matter is that Christianity was, at the time of Michaelangelo and through the institutional framework of the Catholic Church of his era, a major patron of the arts.

Yes, because the Church had the money.

And not only was it a major patron, one could equally argue that the devotion which a man like Michaelangelo had for his religion - the extent to which the grief of the Virgin Mary over her crucified son as she cradled him in her arms, mattered immensely to him, precisely because it was an article of faith and something quite obviously evoking strong emotion in him as a sculptor, hence his sculpting it at all in such exquisite detail in the first place - was absolutely essential to the Pietà as the genius work of art that it is, because it is a profoundly religious and affective sculpture.

Yes, we have no idea what he might have done in a different sociocultural-intellect context and milieu - but that's the same for every other artist living at every other time in every other context. All we can do is work with the piece of art that we have, arising from the artist working on it as understood against the background of what influenced and patronized him/her in his his/her given time and place.

Sure: one could make the argument that, if he weren't constrained by his circumstances, living in a theocracy, that he would have made all the same choices. One could argue that the extreme limitations on his freedom weren't a constraint at all for him.

I'm not sure what reasonable justification could exist for that argument, but sure... one could make it.

 

[Kenny]

If you appreciate the art that Michaelangelo actually made, just imagine how much more magnificent his work could have been if it wasn't constrained by an oppressive religion.

I think religions (in my definition) are oppressive by nature. But Jesus didn't come to start a religion but rather freeing people for a personal relationship with the Father and liberating them from religion.

 

[metis]

I think religions (in my definition) are oppressive by nature. But Jesus didn't come to start a religion but rather freeing people for a personal relationship with the Father and liberating them from religion.

I agree in that I don't believe Jesus intended to start a new religion but to offer a reform of Judaism based on his belief of what he thought God wanted in the long run. His position was not much different from Hillel the Elder's, btw, although he took it a step further.