Is it a historical fact that Catholic and Orthodox churches physically descend from the apostles whereas Protestantism represents a discontinuity in the body of Christ?
Is it a historical fact that Catholic and Orthodox churches physically descend from the apostles whereas Protestantism represents a discontinuity in t...
No.
>The Catholic and Orthodox priesthoods are not the same unbroken lineage of presbyteros/episkopos spoken of in the New Testament.
Then who is? Jim Bob's Baptist Church founded in 1990? So every bishop list that all these different churches, patriarchates, and sees have (Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopian, Armenian, Assyrian, Saint Thomas Christians) that date back to the 1st century were all faked? Yikes. That sure is a lot of people in on the conspiracy. I'm so glad Jim Bob restored authentic Christianity with his KJV-Only Independent Non-Denominational Pentecostal Baptist Church he founded in 1990.
I don’t know why you think non-Episcopalians would care about apostolic succession given they explicitly reject the concept of episcopal hierarchy altogether. If they believe in any form of apostolic succession it’s in the form of the continuity of the true faith that transcends any particular denominational boundaries, which is not what Catholics, E/O Orthodox, Lutherans or Episcopalians mean by that.
In terms of the succession of bishops Anglicans and Lutherans 100% have the same claim to apostolic succession that Catholics do, because their bishops trace themselves directly to the once-Catholic churches of Northern Europe.
>But they’re schismatics
And so is your church. On the Great Schism it was 300% the Latin church that was introducing new innovations and more importantly, was transparently motivated by political chicanery as seen in shit like the Donation of Constantine and the two-emperors problem.
*or Anglicans
> In terms of the succession of bishops Anglicans and Lutherans 100% have the same claim to apostolic succession that Catholics do, because their bishops trace themselves directly to the once-Catholic churches of Northern Europe
The idea of Protestantism as schism is interesting, I hadn’t considered that. It’s a shame that all episcopal Protestants are LGBT-mongers.
Drinking blood is a sinful practice which is forbidden by God in both the Old and New Testaments
Drinking gods blood makes you a blasphemer.
>drinking blood taken from any animal is a sin
>God is not an animal
>therefore, drinking God’s blood is not a sin
This, on top of the fact that God himself said it was okay
How is that not obvious? Henry VIII was an English monarch, Luther a Catholic monk who broke his vows, Calvin a lawyer, etc.
>Henry VIII was an English monarch
The Pope himself legitimised the apostolic succession of Big Hanks McChurch by appointing Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury at Henry’s request.
Patently false
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cranmer
>Henry personally financed the papal bulls necessary for Cranmer's promotion to Canterbury. The bulls were easily acquired because the papal nuncio was under orders from Rome to please the English in an effort to prevent a final breach. The bulls arrived around 26 March 1533 and Cranmer was consecrated as a bishop on 30 March in St Stephen's Chapel, by John Longland, Bishop of Lincoln; John Vesey, Bishop of Exeter; and Henry Standish, Bishop of St Asaph.
Yes, it was unironically the Pope who unwittingly put the gold stamp of Apostolic approval on Henry’s church by appointing this literal who radical reformer ABoC thinking it would appease Henry.
How? Catholicism broke from the united Chalcedonian church which itself broke from the Oriental Church. If we are going to search for the most ancient, most seamlessly and unassailably apostolic church it is beyond all dispute Oriental
Orthodoxy, you know, the one that predates Chalcedon and that comes from the region Christ and his apostles spent most of their lives and ministries in. It even has the better claim for descent from Peter in particular given it is unassailable fact that he was bishop of Antioch but the evidence that he was ever bishop of Rome is significantly less credible.
If Protestants are schismatics then so are Catholics. If Catholics have apostolic succession then so too so Protestant Episcopalians (at the very least).
>How? Catholicism broke from the united Chalcedonian church which itself broke from the Oriental Church
All three of the aforementioned have continuity with the organization of the apostles, which Protestants do not.
> If Catholics have apostolic succession then so too so Protestant Episcopalians (at the very least)
N.b. The Pope recognizes EO and OO orders but not Anglican orders.
>Our connection to the apostles is more so derived from the fact that we have le true religion
Cope
> All three of the aforementioned have continuity with the organization of the apostles, which Protestants do not.
Okay but how? This is a claim that must be justified. If RC can have apostolic succession, despite being blatant objective schismatics, then how not also episcopalian protestant denominations like Lutheran’s and Anglicans?
> The Pope recognizes EO and OO orders but not Anglican orders
EO on the other hand do recognise Anglican orders. There’s also the fact the modern day overtures of ecumenicism by the RC church are far from the historic position and it’s the only major church on the planet that is not in the World Council of Churches, for the Vatican ecumenicism means the subordination of all Christendom to Rome.
> Okay but how? This is a claim that must be justified
Fair point, I guess it’s just because Anglicanism and Lutheranism reformed. To reform is to break from tradition. RC, EO, and OO all have absolute continuity.
>Fair point, I guess it’s just because Anglicanism and Lutheranism reformed. To reform is to break from tradition. RC, EO, and OO all have absolute continuity.
Lutherism and the Catholic church are far closer in terms of doctrine and practises then the catholic church and the Orthdox church. catholics always saying 'vgh my orthodox brothers' never cease to amuse me, as it reveals their theoligical ignorance.
But why single out the reformation as a decisive break but not the great schism or the council of Chalcedon? This seems like special pleading.
The Orthdox church considers the Anglican church apostolistic. in fact relations between Anglican church and Orthodox church have never been closer. You can see Orthodox icons in St Pauls these days. The Bishop of Rome can kick and scream all he likes.
> Our connection to the apostles is more so derived from the fact that we have le true religion
The official EO and OO stance on the recognition of orders is that it is contingent on fidelity to the true faith rather than any particulars of ceremony. Catholics are the odd men out on this issue.
>Henry personally financed the papal bulls necessary for Cranmer's promotion to Canterbury. The bulls were easily acquired because the papal nuncio was under orders from Rome to please the English in an effort to prevent a final breach.
It's funny how Roman Catholics always claim their organization to be a paragon of purity when it's constantly engaged in political scheming like this.
Note that OP's question was explicitly about history, not Romanist theology.
It is a fact which the papists do not deny that our reformers came out of the church of Rome. Therefore, they cannot dispute our connection to the apostles without disputing their own. But they object that their priests have apostolic succession, while our elders do not. And by "apostolic succession" they mean the false priesthood of which the apostles knew nothing and which the reformers rightly abolished. In charging us with not having this they charge us with nothing except not being them, and show how it is really them and not us which have broken with the apostolic Church through their insistence on this grotesque pagan novelty which insults the sufficient priestly work and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
>our connection to the apostles is through the Catholic Church
>that’s why we are valid
>t-the Catholic Church is grotesque and pagan
Our connection to the apostles is more so derived from the fact we share their religion in its pure form found in the New Testament, but historically our ministers are traceable back to them through the church of Rome, which is grotesque and pagan. Yes.
It could also be said that Aquinas created discontinuity for the Catholic Church.
Jesus didn't exist and neither did the apostles.
No, given that Protestantism emerged from Catholicism you cannot credibly argue their episcopal hierarchy would descent from the apostles… but that the episcopal hierarchies that descend from their own organisation do not.
Likewise if Protestantism represents a discontinuity in the body of Christ so too is the Roman church given that they are schismatics that broke the Chalcedonian church in two for infinitely more flimsy reasons than Martin Luther’s reformation. And that the Chalcedonian church that themselves schismatics that split with Oriental Orthodoxy.
>inb4 no they’re the schismatics, we were in the right
Yeah so was Martin Luther.
> No, given that Protestantism emerged from Catholicism you cannot credibly argue their episcopal hierarchy would descent from the apostles… but that the episcopal hierarchies that descend from their own organisation do not.
One is a smooth descent though, the other contains a break in it.