One true church?

[Katzpur]

Like I said, nothing, but Orthodoxy and Catholicism are older, and hence have a more valid claim. Also, they may not have Apostles, but they do have the successors of the Apostles.

Well, they do claim to, and they do recognize the need for a continuous line going back to Jesus Christ. In this I see a rational argument since the Bible appears to be pretty clear on the fact that Jesus did establish an organizational Church and ordain individuals to fill specific roles. For this reason, I find their claims to be "the one true Church" to be a whole lot more logical than Protestantism's doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers." I think the issue is really whether that line of authority really does continue to exist within Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy or not. Personally, though, I fail to see how it is possible to have apostolic authority without apostles.

 

[Katzpur]

Where does the Bible say the successor of an Apostle must be an Apostle?

Isn't it logical? When we elect someone to be the President of the United States, that person becomes the new President of the United States. He assumes the responsibilities of the President of the United States and is expected to fill the role previously occupied by someone else. There are certain things he is given the right and authority to do and other things he isn't. There are policies which he must adhere to (unless his middle initial is 'W') and certain rules that govern how he governs us. I suppose it could be argued that "Apostle" is just a title and that if the authority a person holds is the same authority Christ's apostles held, it's all the same thing. Still, a bishop never was the same thing as an apostle, and there is absolutely nothing in scripture to imply that the Bishop of Rome was ever to hold any position of supremacy over any other bishop.

 

[Katzpur]

Spanjo you're rewriting Christian history for your own purpose. There were HISTORICALLY Bishops, early church fathers, who were the successors of the Apostles, or at least the Apostles ordained them and charged them with the keeping of the apostolic doctrines.

Historically? So who ordained Linus, the first Pope? Is there an actual record of his ordination by the apostles? I don't know; I'm just asking.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

To me I think were Mormonism parts ways with Catholicism, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Mormons believe that after the Apostles had died, the Bishops who succeeded them were not faithful in keeping their doctrines, and the Church eventually apostacized, leading to the need for a re-establishing of the true church. Am I correct as far as Mormon belief is concerned?

Not quite. The LDS belief is that the Church needs to be built on a foundation of apostles and prophets.

If original Christianity did not believe that an apostle succeeded an apostle, then why did they ordain Paul to be one? Also, I wouldn't really say that the Bishops were unfaithful. It's more like the people wouldn't follow what they were taught. The shepherds couldn't lead a flock that wouldn't follow them. There are new testamant passages that refer to an apostasy that would occur before Christ returned to the earth.

 

[Katzpur]

To me I think were Mormonism parts ways with Catholicism, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Mormons believe that after the Apostles had died, the Bishops who succeeded them were not faithful in keeping their doctrines, and the Church eventually apostacized, leading to the need for a re-establishing of the true church. Am I correct as far as Mormon belief is concerned?

Dallas says, "Spot on." I say, "Not quite." First off, bishops don't succeed apostles and never have. While a person may have been a bishop and then have been ordained an apostle, the two callings are distinct. Bishops were always called to preside over individual congregations, while the Apostles presided over the Church as a whole and were responsible for missionary efforts (assisted by groups of seventy men who traveled two by two, teaching the gospel).

I don't know if you've ever read anything about the medieval Church, but "A World Lit Only By Fire" is a fascinating history written by William Manchester, Professor of History Emeritus at Wesleyan University. Believe me, apostolic succession in the early Church was nothing like Christ intended that it be!

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

There isn't a church on earth that has a truthful bone in it's body.

It's all faulty. Even the pope measures degrees of sin, as proven by his recent antics.

I would say quite the opposite. I think it is hard to find a church that doesn't have truth in it. Even the worst evil is often a mixture of truth and lies.

 

[dallas1125]

Dallas says, "Spot on." I say, "Not quite." First off, bishops don't succeed apostles and never have. While a person may have been a bishop and then have been ordained an apostle, the two callings are distinct. Bishops were always called to preside over individual congregations, while the Apostles presided over the Church as a whole and were responsible for missionary efforts (assisted by groups of seventy men who traveled two by two, teaching the gospel).

I don't know if you've ever read anything about the medieval Church, but "A World Lit Only By Fire" is a fascinating history written by William Manchester, Professor of History Emeritus at Wesleyan University. Believe me, apostolic succession in the early Church was nothing like Christ intended that it be!

I apologize, I read this and changed my view on the subject.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Historically? So who ordained Linus, the first Pope? Is there an actual record of his ordination by the apostles? I don't know; I'm just asking.

I think the Roman Church's claim of Linus being the second Pope is unhistorical, but that view has changed several times. Many times they have said Clement of Rome, and I think that is correct, because it's mentioned in the Constitutions of the Apostles and Tertullian also mentions it. The RCC says Peter was martyred in either 63 or 69 AD to reflect the fact Clement may have been Peter's successor, 69 if Clement.

 

[Katzpur]

I think the Roman Church's claim of Linus being the second Pope is unhistorical, but that view has changed several times. Many times they have said Clement of Rome, and I think that is correct, because it's mentioned in the Constitutions of the Apostles and Tertullian also mentions it. The RCC says Peter was martyred in either 63 or 69 AD to reflect the fact Clement may have been Peter's successor, 69 if Clement.

There are far too many "unhistorical," "changed" and "may have been"s for me. By the way, the New Advent (a Catholic Encyclopedia) lists these men as the first five popes:

1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)

Of the 266 popes listed, close to three dozen were noted as being "opposed by" other individuals. And of course, Popes Clement VII and Benedict XIII (reigning in Avignon) excommunicated Popes Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII (reigning in Rome), who excommunicated them right back. It's just not something that gives me a real warm, fuzzy feeling about Catholicism's claim to apostolic succession, if you know what I mean.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

There are far too many "unhistorical," "changed" and "may have been"s for me. By the way, the New Advent (a Catholic Encyclopedia) lists these men as the first five popes:

1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)

Of the 266 popes listed, close to three dozen were noted as being "opposed by" other individuals. And of course, Popes Clement VII and Benedict XIII (reigning in Avignon) excommunicated Popes Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII (reigning in Rome), who excommunicated them right back. It's just not something that gives me a real warm, fuzzy feeling about Catholicism's claim to apostolic succession, if you know what I mean.

Yeah I know what you mean, but there is also Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism's Apostolic Succession claims, and far as I know, those are unbroken. I was raised Anglican, and far as I know, the Archbishop of Canterbury canon has no breaks in succession.

 

[dallas1125]

Im so confused....