Apostolic Succession

Agreed.

 

But the issue here is not just what we believe personally its what is declared to be truth ..

 

This is exactly why I don't put much time into dogma, a few hundred years ago it was declared to be true that the earth was flat.... mmmmmmmm no it's not. We have a living Bible and it is about time we started to realize it......

Believe it or not it is all about what you believe personally... don't sweat the small stuff become a mystic we have more fun.......

PS and you can sleep at night....

 

No brother i am already crazy enough lol no seriously i take youre point and thank you for the reply

 

I look at this way brother - you can be in the world and not of it... Richard Rohr often talks about a subject I used to bring up with my congregation when I was an active Spiritualist Priest rather then a Monastic like I am now...

I often spoke on the problems we face when we view God from a dualistic perspective rather then a unitarian perspective (don't read Unitarian Movement into this) I hold with the concept of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.... Paul highlights we are one because we all share in the one bread. I believe we are all one... and that is what I mean when I talk about a unitarian perspective.

If I had the opportunity I would not talk about this in an Anglican Service at our local church because people just don't quite get simple....

 

So I suppose what I am saying is don't waste precious time worrying about if my dogma and my catma are getting along.

 

Absolutely agreed! But...
However to say that Christ cannot call those without apostolic succession seems to put limits on God! Which is very serious to do in my opinion!mBesides it's an massive step to take that since Christ chose the apostles all those whom the apostles and the leaders after them chose are the only true leaders of the church! I think I can say with absolute confidence that many who have apostolic succession have not been called by Christ.

The whole doctrine of apostolic succession seems to me to be all about power rather than anything else

 

That logic would also state that only the apostles can partake in the sacrament

 

Just realised I'm quite bad at that myself. Good advice Gordon

 

You are truly a wise man sk

 

This assumes the Church is a hierarchal structural organisation. If the Church is seen primarily as community then the preservation of apostolic succession is not necessary to the Church's preservation

 

lol, Lets see if I put your advice to practice first

 

Praise the Lord as our Pentecostal brothers would say lol

 

Ok well about applying leeches to rid the body of the bad blood that causes the plague will cure hearmoroids or new Zealand will win the rugby world cup lol

 

This has been a nice diversion from the topic, but all this mystical rubbish doesn't help us get to answering the question of history and the reliability of episcopal claims.

Gordon, you know very well that it never comes down to that. One may do one thing while thinking of another. Many of my slower days at the soup kitchen downtown were spent pondering apostolic succession. You're making a false comparison in order to emphasise social work over wrangling for the truth, so we can all just get along feeding the poor. Peter told us to ever have reasons for our hope.

The roundness of the Earth was quite conclusively proved by Aristarchus in the BCs, as well as its rotation about the Sun and the distance of other planets from the Sun. Aquinas says somewhere in the Summa that the spherical nature of our planet is obvious to anyone. This is a horrid myth, and no we do not have a bloody living Bible. Canon's closed.

You've gone mad, sir. "It" has nothing to do with personal beliefs! If that was so, Bishop Spong would be quite right saying the Resurrection never happened except in the hearts of the Apostles. "It's what he strongly believes, so it's right for him, isn't it?" That's really dreadful.

I regret the day Francis set out from his father's shop... it has spawned so many bizarre theories and theologians, like those wacky Scotists! At least they somewhat tempered the Thomists, but overall it's been a mess.

 

Yes, this is root of the issue. Is Christianity 40,000 local church organizations loosely organized as part of the invisible church, each with a slightly different set of theological opinions, with little need for national or international organizations? Or rather, are we part of a unified Church with much in common with regard to theological opinion and liturgy. IMHO, we should learn from our non-denominational and Baptist brothers and sisters who have all the authority with regard to interpretation of Scripture and doctrine at a local level, or even at an individual level. IMHO, this simply doesn't work. I understand that national and international Church bodies make their mistakes (men and women sin). However, leaving each pastor and individual to his own interpretations is much worse. Finally, hierarchical structures allow for continuity after that one great pastor leaves.

ALL THIS BEING SAID
There are two roads that often clash, and shouldn't really be in conflict. IMHO, mysticism within the structure of community is the model of the early Church. However, the Early Church soon found that standardized forms were necessary and were of great help for the masses. They still are. This world, and the US, are troubled. Our mystic prayer warriors are essential. But so are some standardization of belief and liturgy.

This country needs our witness not our self-righteousness. Half the country believes in God yet does not attend any church on a regular basis. That is, half of our country is seeking and not finding. We must figure our how to reach our neighbors. And yes, we need also to reach those who do attend.

And as an aside, we must use the modern media that are available to us. These are tools that are needed to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth.

 

Of course I agree. I'm not saying this is something that limits God, but, rather, something that limits men. How do you know that a man was selected by God, if you see a man possessed? Where's the proof? The Scriptures caution us against the devils who possess men; in fact it teaches us to stick to the Scripture for revelation from God; men possessed, men claiming direct revelation "from the holy spirit", are to be inherently doubted.

This doctrine does not limit God but men; if God wanted us to accept a man he Spoke to, we wouldn't have scruples and doubts about his legitimacy.

Barring that, the only link to orthodoxy, and back to Christ, is apostolic succession. It's not a link that guarantees orthodoxy, but a link that guarantees corporal unity. Some (modern-day) apostles can be bad, and we'll stick to the good ones. But this limits us, it's a limit against us once again, that prevents us from schism and from appointing ourselves as apostles.

I mean think about it, look at the history of the Presbyterian church, look how many schisms, factions, splits there were. God devised a simple method for corporal unity: He appointed Joe, Joe appointed Bob, Bob appoints Sam. Those outside of this chain are not allowed to claim ecclesial authority, even if, as laymen, they know the Scriptures back to back. They need to join under Sam's shadow, and within the unbroken succession, then teach what they know.

That's the Roman Catholic patrimony, unfortunately, which we need to continue to fix. The bishop must not have the riches and worldly robes that many do nowadays. To be a bishop is not supposed to be a lucrative position.

 

Well if nothing else, it teaches us Closed Communion , and explains why the TEC is inching close to openly apostasizing.

But the NT itself teaches us that the Church is a hierarchical structure, with at least 4 inviolable 'class boundaries' so to speak.

First you have the Apostles; only they are given the commission to forgive sins, and only they are given the Keys to Heaven.
Then you have the "seventy-two"; the followers in the outer rung, whom Christ did not befriend personally, and did not consider important enough to hold in his inner circle (it's this concept of the 'inner circle' that negates the concept of Christianity as a flat community). The "seventy-two" are our modern day ministers; the clergy, who are given the mission to preach and baptize. Then you have the laymen, e.g. those fed on the Mount. They were neither in the inner circle, nor committed any special role from Christ. Their job is to live in the community, and be good Christians. And then fourth you have Christ himself of course, the High Priest.

 

Hi Mark,

I agree with most of what you said, the last couple of years I've moved away from belief in complete congregational autonomy and played a part in moving to presbyteriansm.

viewing the church as community does not nessesarily mean the abandonment of structure, I think that was perhaps a bad choice of words on my part. It is possible to imagine say, for whatever reason the apostolic succession dying out or being corrupted, now those who who see christ's promise to preserve His Church as linked to the continual laying on of hands would say the church has died out, whereas for someone who sees it as community would say, well - we'll appoint new bishops! And there's still that spiritual succession among the people.