We had one CoC sophist a while back that just kept insisting that the Church of Christ wasn't a denomination, because it was THE Church of Christ based entirely on the name

apostolic succession.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

---

Not true.

PabloSerna said:

---

apostolic succession.

---

Apostolic succession is not the claim Thaddeus is making, but since you are we can go down that route.

Apostolic succession is not the handing of a title down from one person to the next. I drove by a bible church a while back that had a big sign out front.

|-----------------------------------------------|
|-------- "____ Bible Church"----------- |
| "We have apostolic succession" |
|__________________________________|


And they probably did have a lineage of successors up a family tree who had a history with the anabaptists, the reformers, the catholic church, the united orthodox and catholic church, the apostles, and eventually Jesus. Ipso facto direct line to Jesus!

Most first wave protestant churches also claim apostolic succession. Shoot, the American anglican church used Scotland as a market competitor to get a bishop over to the states when England, fresh off losing a revolution, wasn't in the mood to endorse an american branch of their church.

So if its not just X bestowed Y as a priest, then what exactly is succession? It clearly is the handing down of not a title, but a teaching and a tradition.

So does the catholic church have a lineage of teachers and students back to the apostles? Yes. But so does that bible church and most other christian teachers. The only way you wouldn't would be if you just picked up a bible and started preaching. So its all about the preservation of the claims and teachings of the apostles that makes or breaks Apostolic succession, not just genealogy of teachers.

Catholics like to claim they have preserved the teachings wholly. Others will refute that.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

apostolic succession.

---

Apostolic succession is not the claim Thaddeus is making, but since you are we can go down that route.

Apostolic succession is not the handing of a title down from one person to the next. I drove by a bible church a while back that had a big sign out front.

|-----------------------------------------------|
|-------- "____ Bible Church"----------- |
| "We have apostolic succession" |
|_______________________________|


And they probably did have a lineage of successors up a family tree who had a history with the anabaptists, the reformers, the catholic church, the united orthodox and catholic church, the apostles, and eventually Jesus. Ipso facto direct line to Jesus!

Most first wave protestant churches also claim apostolic succession. Shoot, the American anglican church used Scotland as a market competitor to get a bishop over to the states when England, fresh off losing a revolution, wasn't in the mood to endorse an american branch of their church.

So if its not just X bestowed Y as a priest, then what exactly is succession? It clearly is the handing down of not a title, but a teaching and a tradition.

So does the catholic church have a lineage of teachers and students back to the apostles? Yes. But so does that bible church and most other christian teachers. The only way you wouldn't would be if you just picked up a bible and started preaching. So its all about the preservation of the claims and teachings of the apostles that makes or breaks Apostolic succession, not just genealogy of teachers.

Catholics like to claim they have preserved the teachings wholly. Others will refute that.

---

There's definitely more to it than that. With rejection of the early and united catholic Church (not simply the RCC) you have to change your theology to match it because you're on the outside. Edit: when I say united there are four basic liturgies that went out from the church including to Africa (often neglected in the RCC's fight over who controls modern Christendom). There's not a ton of difference for a long time.

You're making an argument for discipleship, not succession.

Not trying to pick a fight. You asked a simple question and I answered it. Someone cited "The Church" however, it is spelled out in the Nicene Creed as,

"I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church."

great discussion, but the fact remains that Luther was the very first protestant, some 1100 years after the Council of Rome determined infallibly the canon of scripture with all 73 books (they're all in the Gutenberg bible, published in the century before Luther) .

There is apostolic succession (Acts - "Let his office another take.").

The martyrs in the coliseum were Catholic (we have a lot of their writings, to this day.) The Didache is about as Catholic a document as there can be.

great discussion, but the fact remains that Luther was the very first protestant, some 1100 years after the Council of Rome determined infallibly the canon of scripture with all 73 books (they're all in the Gutenberg bible, published in the century before Luther) .

There is apostolic succession (Acts - "Let his office another take.").

The martyrs in the coliseum were Catholic (we have a lot of their writings, to this day.) The Didache is about as Catholic a document as there can be.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

great discussion, but the fact remains that Luther was the very first protestant, some 1100 years after the Council of Rome determined infallibly the canon of scripture with all 73 books (they're all in the Gutenberg bible, published in the century before Luther) .

There is apostolic succession (Acts - "Let his office another take.").

The martyrs in the coliseum were Catholic (we have a lot of their writings, to this day.) The Didache is about as Catholic a document as there can be.

---

Which ones? Are you aware Ignatius is celebrated separately by various Orthodox churches, on different dates, or that there is substantial scholarly debate as to the veracity of the writings/letters attributed to him being his own?

The Roman church did a lot of things in the Middle Ages to create tourist attractions of various locations where Christian's were killed by the Romans, including Peter himself. Most are just…that, tourist traps/ways to raise money.

The council of Rome was/is not a true ecumenical council.

The didache is off topic, not in the Bible, and not pertinent to any authenticity discussion as to the 'true faith.'

Quote:

---

The council of Rome was/is not a true ecumenical council.

---

Please explain this...

If the Didache is irrelevant, even though it is the teaching of the 12 apostles, then everything that is written on texags.com/R&P forum by modern day internet posters is even more irrelevant...

Thaddeus73 said:

---

If the Didache is irrelevant, even though it is the teaching of the 12 apostles, then everything that is written on texags.com/R&P forum by modern day internet posters is even more irrelevant...

---

The question of whether something is is 'biblical' is a bad question; it fails to comprehend what the Bible is and serves to elevate the individual to the arbiter of right worship.

The Lord's Prayer is biblical but non-liturgical traditions rarely say it every Sunday. The Decalogue was recited within 100 years after Christ at services and is in the OT but who would say it's biblical in the sense that it belongs in a worship service (outside liturgical traditions)?

Throw out the Didache and you throw out some of Christianity's anti-abortion tradition and roots. So why do it?

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

The council of Rome was/is not a true ecumenical council.

---

Please explain this...

---

It was not an ecumenical council.

The oriental orthodox churches even only recognize the first 4 (and results of the first 3).

The council of Rome really only stamped further approval on the list of books confirmed as canonical at Trent anyway.

Initially defining infallibly the canon of scripture seems like it makes it the most important Church Council of all time...

https://www.futuresgood.org/council_of_rome_AD382.html

It was just an internal/denominational meeting, of sorts, not a broader consensus.

Baptists would say the Sandy Creek Baptist Confession/Association was/is significant, too, but most RCC scholars would not agree as to its global/catholic (lower case) importance.

Catholics are not a denomination; all other churches are denominations of the Catholic Church....

We are not going to solve this here on TexAgs, the whole Othrodox-Catholic thing. Much less the Catholic-Protestant thing. Interesting how the common denominator is the Roman church, but let's put it (schism) in perspective. If incredible minds like Luther, Aquinas, and others (not well read on Orthodox) have come and gone, then you can bet this thread will fail to deliver.

Have fun though!

Well sure, but other than a certain cheesecake-related matter/mystery that stumped Michael Young, has TA ever been used to 'solve' anything?