TO ALL THE THEOLOGIANS: Why is historic succesion so important? The passing on of the apostolic faith is paramount but why is it essential to have this tactile "laying on of hands" by someone "supposedly" that can be traced back to the apostles. Luther dealt with a church that claimed this succession but was still steeped in corruption and in some cases false teaching i.e. indulgences. The lutheran church in Sweeden claims succession but most lutherans don't, and see it as unessential. Is the church in Sweeden therefore a more authentic church and if so why?

Also if churches like the CEC and others have someone from another communion lay hands on them so they can start their own communion how is that legitimate. It seems to reduce historic succession to magic. It's like buying ecclesiastical legitimazation.

I tend to think Luther got it right in terms of the importance of the passing of the apostolic faith regardless of who touched who? How could the Lutheran church in Sweeden have a valid Eucharist while other Lutheran churches do not. I can't imagine the Lord saying "I will not show up here in same way because the right man didn't lay hands on that pastor" Could the absolute necessity of historic succession merely be a way of exercising control and dominance over people by convincing them we are the only ones with a valid Eucharist?

Luther was a Korah. (Jude 1:11)

What is a "korah"?

One can only guess, but I believe what Mr Follis is indicating is:

In Jude 1:11, Jude speaks of those who "perished in the gainsaying of Core" making direct reference to Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16-17. He was the individual who not only stirred up some of the princes of the congregation, adversely affecting the tribe of Reuben (Numbers 16:1), but he became a rallying point for all the disgruntled who found fault with Moses and Aaron.

Korah maintained that Moses and Aaron had taken more on themselves than God had intended, accusing Moses and Aaron of lifting themselves up above the assembly (Numbers 16:3). God's intention was that there be fraternity and equality among His people (Numbers 15:37-41).

Korah seemed blinded to the fact that should he occupy their place, his accusation would also condemn him. Korah was definitely a rebel without a cause, an instigator of insurrection among God's people.

I leave you folks to hash out your opinions.

Oops, sorry not a theologian! :o

Thanks, John Wayne! Your summary is excellent and it reveals that John Wayne, although humble, was a great theologian (Theologian-"One skilled in the study and discourse of God").

I would add that if you replace Korah with Luther and interpolate Moses (Matt. 23:1,2) with the Bishop of Rome, you will see my inference. Additionally, the argument was not just as to who should lead, as you well stated, but what worship God would accept.

I would say the same question applies to us, "Does God want Convergence “Three Streams” Worship or does He want the historic Catholic worship?"

True Convergence is Catholic. To be a Catholic is be cata- holic, “of the whole” converged Church. Therefore I am:

1. Pentecostal because I believe in the power of Pentecost and I celebrate Pentecost each year and I seek anointing with oil when I am sick.

2. Methodist because I focus, as the Methodist did, on Bible study, and a methodical approach to Scriptures and Christian living. Originally a "Methodist" was one who met weekly for the purpose of mutual improvement. They were accustomed to communicate every week, to fast regularly and to abstain from most forms of amusement and luxury. They also frequently visited poor and sick persons and prisoners in the jail. As a Catholic, I am to do this and the Cursillo/ Kairos movement of the Catholic Church has helped me.

3. Evangelical because I believe in the proclamation of the Evangel (Gospel, "Good News") each Sunday and in Altar calls every Sunday. I believe “ye must be born again!” (John 3:3)

4. Biblical and Fundamental, since I hold to the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the whole, Holy Bible- all 73 books.

5. Sacramental believing in all Seven Sacraments.

6. Messianic Jewish, since we celebrate the ancient Liturgy, have a Tabernacle to reserve the Word made Flesh, vestments and all the wonderful sacramentals of the Jewish faith.

7. Episcopal simply because I am ruled by a Bishop.

8. Charismatic because I believe the gifts are for us today. The Charismatic movement restored the emphasis of these gifts.

9. Orthodox because I adhere to the "straight worship and doctrine” of the Councils- all 21 of them and I enjoy icons and incense with the East’s "smells, bells, steeples and wells".

I find your branding of Luther as "Korah" to be questionable, unless you really think that Julius II (dressed in his armor and riding his war-horse to personally lead the invasion of Venice!) and Leo X (a worldly man by all accounts) were "Moses"!

The late great John Paul II, to mark the 500th anniversary of Luther's birth, called him a man of passionate faith and spoke well of him. He certainly did not call him "Korah".

I can accept the idea of such wretches as the Borgia and Medici popes as sitting on the throne of Peter--just as the Pharisees sat on Moses' throne--but please don't pretend everything was wonderful with the Catholic Church in 1500 and evil Luther was simply shaking his fist at the Godly "Moses" of Julius and Leo.

That is incredibly simplistic and does not do justice to the facts.

I repeat, I can grasp that some of the wretched popes of the 10th century and the 15th century were indeed sitting on Peter's throne. But they were not paragons of virtue by any means, and corruption stank to high heaven.

Luther was stubborn in his own way, I fully admit. Whether his stand was prophetic or rebellious (or a confusing mixture of both as I tend to think) is a matter of discernment--though please keep in mind that Vatican II ended up receiving many of his reforms 400 years later, such as Mass in the vernacular, promotion of Scripture study, Communion in both kinds, etc.

"Korah"--maybe yes, maybe no.

Do I pretend that everything was wonderful with the Catholic Church in 1517?

You certainly made some good points here and you have every right to disagree with me. However I cannot discount that Luther went in the way of Cain and began gainsaying as Korah had done. Concerning the Popes and clergy of the Church at Rome, "They sit in the seat of Moses, therefore do what they tell you to do but do not do as they are doing" This was, as you recall, a reference by Jesus to the Pharisees, an ungodly group of folks, whom He called “white-washed tombstones and vipers”. I do not intend to sweep the error of Catholics under a proverbial rug but I also recognize there are many who claim to be of my faith and are not. There is little I find fault with in Luther’s 95 Theses. However there were many reformers like Erasmus, and Dante and Basil before him, who called sin “Sin!” Erasmus died a Catholic. However Jesus also said in Matt. 23, “Do not strain out a gnat while swallowing a camel”. Luther did just that.

Some? I would say all Popes sit in the seat of Peter.

Whitfield spoke well of Wesley at his funeral. Peter Gilquist, "Let us celebrate the orthodoxy of our brothers where they are, in fact, orthodox"

Ha, my bad grammar!

The "some" referred to "wretched". I admit they all sat on Peter's chair!

And yes, Luther was playing with fire. But put yourself in his place--accused before the Emperor and the Holy Roman Diet as an outlaw and a heretic, condemned to be burned at the stake if he was caught--and with a "whitewashed viper" on the throne of Peter. Not a good position to be in.

But like you, I wish Luther had walked more in the road of Erasmus. The price of division the last 500 years has been terrible indeed.

That is a very good point but we are only getting sound bites of the events of that day. We need to be steeped in history.

Consider the following paper that was later put into a book by the same title: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/RTREF.TXT

Karl Adam writes, "It was night indeed in a great part of Christendom. Such is
the conclusion of our survey of the end of the fifteenth
century: amongst the common people, a fearful decline of true
piety into religious materialism and morbid hysteria; amongst
the clergy, both lower and higher, widespread worldliness and
neglect of duty, and amongst the very Shepherds of the Church,
demonic ambition and sacrilegious perversion of holy things.
Both clergy and people must cry mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!"

"Yes, it was night. Had Martin Luther then arisen with his
marvellous gifts of mind and heart, his warm penetration of
the essence of Christianity, his passionate defiance of all
unholiness and ungodliness, the elemental fury of his
religious experience, his surging, soul-shattering power of
speech, and not least that heroism in the face of death with
which he defied the powers of this world--had he brought all
these magnificent qualities to the removal of the abuses of
the time and the cleansing of God's garden from weeds, had he
remained a faithful member of his Church, humble and simple,
sincere and pure, then indeed we should to-day be his grateful
debtors. He would be forever our great Reformer, our true man
of God, our teacher and leader, comparable to Thomas Aquinas
and Francis of Assisi. He would have been the greatest saint
of the German people, the refounder of the Church in Germany,
a second Boniface . . ."

"But--and here lies the tragedy of the Reformation and of
German Christianity--he let the warring spirits drive him to
overthrow not merely the abuses in the Church, but the Church
Herself, founded upon Peter, bearing through the centuries the
successio apostolica; he let them drive him to commit what St.
Augustine calls the greatest sin with which a Christian can
burden himself: he set up altar against altar and tore in
pieces the one Body of Christ."

I don't see anyone here responding to Johnathan's post very effectively. I find the idea of comparing Luther's actions regarding a highly corrupt pope with rebellion against Moses to be a stretch to say the least. If the patriarch of the CEC was as corrupt amd having the same effect on the Universal Church as the Pope Leo we would be praying that God would raise up a Luther. I cannot imagine a God who only shows up when the pastor has hands layed on him by someone in the "supposed sucession". To suggest as Johnathan did that the lutheran church of Sweeden's Eucharist is valid but that lutherans in America is not is silly. I agree that this necessity of historic succession is a brilliant way of exercising control by convincing many that only we have the valid sacraments while others are merely playing mass.

By the way, I find it very common in my experience that new converts to Rome tend to galmorize Rome and its' history in an unrealistic and unbalanced way and to demonize any opposition to this idealized understanding i.e. knocking Luther. I believe the Church of Rome may well be Gods' primary vehicle for bringing the Gospel to the world and I am grateful for her, But she has not been without defect of charecter. The reformation never would have played out the way it did if it was not for Rome's arrogance and power. In many ways her "unbridled power " had similarities with the current crisis in the CEC. Thank God for the German monk who had the courage to stand up to her. If Rome was truly humble then indeed she may have heard Luther's concerns and he may have been cannonized as the great reformer.

Reportedly, the Catholic Church recognises the true apostolic succession and valid sacraments of 3 groups of Churches outside Rome:

1. The Eastern Orthodox who have some connection with the Patriarch of Constantinople (Greek Orthodox, Russian, Romanian etc); out of communion with us since 1054.

2. The four Oriental Orthodox Churches---Syrian, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian; out of communion with us since the Council of Chalcedon, AD 451.

3. The Assyrian Church, a.k.a. Church of the East, out of communion with us since Council of Ephesus, AD 431.

Yes, this was the error of Balaam and Simon. However just because some think it can be bought and have mistakenly "bought" it, it does not nullify the gift.
They call it Simony for a reason.

Luther did not pass on the Apostolic faith. He passed on the Lutheran faith but I am convinced that Luther wouldn't even be Lutheran by today's standards.

No, read the Apostolic fathers and Acts 1,2.

Ken,

Do you believe Jesus would be present in a lutheran church of sweeden Eucharist due to this "supposed succession" and not another lutheran Eucharist. If so, why? Does the Holy Spirit only show up in this way when you have the right guy lay hands on the other right guy. I wonder how C.S. Lewis, Billy Grahmn, Cory Ten Boom et al. were able to be such wonderful instruments of the Spirit wihout submission to Rome. Too bad C. S. Lewis was according to Rome involved in an invalid Euharist. Ken, I understand your love for Rome, But I think you need to balance it with some sober reality

Pax

Here is why Apostolic Succession is important to me: history matters to me. I practically minored in history in college, and I am a bit of a history buff, yet I knew absolutely nothing about Christian history. My church was founded in the 1700s and I never even bothered to ask why I demanded our country and our civilization have a rich and long history, but when it came to my religion, I didn't care.

Well, I eventually did begin to care. In college as I began to read the Church Fathers and later the Medieval writers, I asked myself why I hadn't heard of the things they valued. The sign of the cross, icons, apostolic succession, the sacraments, etc, sure mattered a lot to the early church, but I had barely even heard of them. As I started reading Christian history, Apostolic succession became vitally important to me. I simply couldn't be in a church with no history or no connection to the past.

In the early Church, Apostolic Succession was a guarantee against novelty and heresy, which is why it was only the Catholic/Orthodox bishops that had it and why they emphasized it over and over against groups like the Gnostics. Apostolic Succession was vitally important simply because even in the 2nd century you had dozens of groups claiming to be true Christianity. So how could someone know which Christianity was valid? According to Irenaeus, only Catholic bishops could trace their beliefs back to the Apostles. Let's say there were 50 competing United States in the early 1800s. How could we distinguish which was the true one? We could ask which group traced itself historically back to the founding fathers. The leaders the founding fathers approved and appointed would be the genuine ones.

Catholics do not say other groups can't have the Holy Spirit in some way. Orthodox, Old Catholics, etc, have valid orders. Certainly great Christians like Wesley and even Luther had the HS in some fashion. Many times I am sure your average Protestant is allowing himself to be more of an instrument for the Spirit than your average Catholic is. And Apostolic Succession is no guarantee every bishop at every time is going to be Godly, nor is it a guarantee the Church is going to be perfect. We must remember too that any Church with an actual history is going to have blemishes. As I told a chatter once who was pointing out blemishes in Catholic history: your church was founded in the 1970s...we'll check back in 2000 years, and if your denomination is still around, we'll check its record.

However, the human weaknesses of church leaders does not diminish the importance of having a real and historical connection back to the Apostles. I know that I personally could never be in a church without Apostolic Succession. So many groups (in the thousands) claim to have the correct interpretation of the Bible, yet most of these groups disagree and most of them were founded very recently. I just don't understand Christianity in this way.

Also, as far as I know, Catholics and Orthodox don't consider the Church of Sweden to have valid orders. Part of it is certainly that they now have women bishops.

Blessings,
David

Thank you for writing.

In response, I consider neither a valid Eucharist.

How does one become a Bishop? Look at Acts 1:17-22. You aren't elected by an assembly nor self appointed. It is authority transferred by the laying on of hands- the Epithesis. (Heb. 6:1-6)

The Holy Spirit is in folks who are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; hence why Billy, Corrie, and Jack were able to be such wonderful instruments of the Spirit without being in submission to Rome. However it was the Catholic Church that gave them their Baptism, Trinity and Bible. I think the Inkling would agree. Also, one cannot baptize themselves so there is also Baptismal Succession. Do you believe that? If so, why not accept that Holy Orders are successive? Certainly you would not let any person wearing a police uniform and carrying a gun arrest you. You would want to see their badge. The badge represents someone bigger than them. It represents the department and his boss. The department represents the city authority. The city represents the State's authority and the state is ordered by the nation, namely Congress. Congress was instituted by the Constitution, given to us by the Founding Fathers.
I hope you are able to see the correlation.

Also note in the following, Catholic was not a Roman novelty. Notice the dates:

What do you think about historic churches that believe in the real presence but are not recognized as valid by Rome? Do you mean to say that when an Anglican priest whose orders are not regognized as valid by Rome consecrates the Eucharist Christ is not truly present in the same way he would be if the priest was Roman? And do you mean to say that Lutherans who believe in the real presence are only deluded into thinking Christ is truly present tn their Eucharist? I hope God is not that Pharisaic.

There are several issues in your post.

1) Grace is rampant. God is always present with His people -- and the celebration of communion -- even outside the Apostolic Succession is not a graceless act. It is not Sacramental -- but it is not without grace.

2) The modern Lutheran understand of the Real Presence is very different from the Catholic understanding, or even the modern Anglican understanding. You really can't lump the two together.

3) How do you define "Real Presence"? Physically? Spiritually? Both? Neither? Even Calvin believed in a "Real Presence" in a spiritual sense -- but that spiritual sense never went beyond "Real Presence" in the heart of the worshiper.

4) There is more to a valid Eucharist than a belief in Real Presence -- and that is the belief in the Sacrificial nature of the Sacrament. Luther explicitly denied that there was any Sacrificial nature in the Eucharist -- and the rest of the Reformers followed suit -- even the Anglicans, who as recently as the Prayer Book Studies #21 of 1970 explicitly DENIED any theology of Eucharistic Sacrifice. This -- NOT a belief in Real Presence -- is a major stumbling block between Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans.

A doctrine you don't understand or don't agree with is not, by definition Pharisaic.

Blessings,

David Z. Just a quick note. You may not be aware of this? On May 24, 2006 the Anglican-Roman Catholic Church produced an agreed statement on the Mass. Anglicans have come to accept the "sacrifice" language of the Mass. See philoorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/05/anglican-roman-catholic-agreed.html (I hope I typed the address correctly). Anyway they agree on the understanding of "anamenesis" and thus participating in the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Blessings

I think there has always been a wing of Anglicanism that believes strongly in the sacrifice of the Mass. The problem is that the early Anglican reformers, who were for the most part Calvinists, did not believe in it, which is why the validity of their early ordinations are suspect.

Another issue is that the Anglican-Catholic dialog's conclusions have been strongly contested by the evangelical wing of the Anglican Church.

Unfortunately, as the Orthodox have said, "we will have ecumenical talks with you [Anglicans] when you can provide us with a leader who speaks for your church." In other words, as happens a lot, what "Anglicans" believe depend on what Anglican you ask.

Blessings,
David

I tried to find the site, but the address seemed incorrect.

However, I want to reaffirm what David B. has said -- namely, that the ARCIC -- the Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogue -- has NOT been accepted by many millions of evangelical Anglicans who feel that the "Anglo-Catholics" have given up way too much.

The Anglican church "as a whole" does NOT believe in the Eucharistic Sacrifice -- sadly.

Blessings,

Thanks guys. If your still interested in looking try http://philorthodoxblogspot.com/2006/05/an...lic-agreed.html
I typed in an extra "o" and an extra "period" Sorry. :(

One of my mentors in the faith was an Evangelical Pentecostal evangelist from England named Leonard Ravenhill who wrote a famous book called, "Why Revival Tarries". He had a saying,"What is the use of apostolic succession if you do not have apostolic success?" Certainly he meant this as a slam against the Catholic and Anglican churches. Ashamedly I asked the same arrogant question at times. The real issue it raised for me was what defines success?

Perhaps Ravenhill was correct in the thought but incorrect in how he defined success.

It reminds me of a story told by a former friend and acquaintence of Ravenhill, "There is a very pointed, although merely legendary account from the 13th century, of a surprise meeting between the famed theologian Thomas Aquinas and Pope Innocent II. One day Aquinas came upon the pope while he was inventorying some of the church treasury. The pope was right in the middle of counting a few large stacks of silver and gold coins when Aquinas came walking in. Looking up to Aquinas the pope quipped, “You see, Thomas, the church can no longer say ‘silver and gold have I none.’” “This is true,” replied Aquinas, “but neither can she say, ‘arise and walk!’”

And we would laugh.

What do you think?

If a RCC Bishop held his office by a political purchase he would be illegitimate. How would that affect his downstream in the matrix of apostolic succession?

Priestoftheplains,
Thank you for your contribution. Are you asking a question or making a statement in the first sentence? If a statement, could you provide an authoritative source for that claim.
Respectfully,
Ken Follis