The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Idzequitch]

I never expected to hear the phrase "Gotta catch 'em all" in reference to the Catholic Saints.

[Lower Nubia]

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/10/45846/ Pretty good article on the issues with the Catholic "Youth Synod".

The old people know what the youths want!

[Blanco-Campeon]

Of course an African bishop is woke on the synod

[Negarakita]

I never expected to hear the phrase "Gotta catch 'em all" in reference to the Catholic Saints.

Maybe the Synod just need to say "Pokemon Go to church" and all the problems will disappear...

[Minzerland II]

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/10/45846/ Pretty good article on the issues with the Catholic "Youth Synod".

[Kowani]

Lutheran and Anglican churches often are more supportive of gender equality and LGBT rights compared to Roman Catholicism, and we also have many similar beliefs and liturgical practices. Also, may I ask what country you live in?

Better to choose a branch that adheres to scripture, rather than resort to cherry-picking.
Which leaves us with Orthodox and Catholicism.

Every branch cherrypicks Scripture to support their beliefs. But go on, keep trying to discredit Protestantism.

[Negarakita]

Better to choose a branch that adheres to scripture, rather than resort to cherry-picking.
Which leaves us with Orthodox and Catholicism.

Every branch cherrypicks Scripture to support their beliefs. But go on, keep trying to discredit Protestantism.

You don't need to mention cherrypicking to discredit protestantism when its such a heresy

[Kowani]

Every branch cherrypicks Scripture to support their beliefs. But go on, keep trying to discredit Protestantism.

You don't need to mention cherrypicking to discredit protestantism when its such a heresy

Okay, I’ll bite. How?
(And back up your positions with evidence that they are correct, not just “They went against the Church!)

[Negarakita]

You don't need to mention cherrypicking to discredit protestantism when its such a heresy

Okay, I’ll bite. How?
(And back up your positions with evidence that they are correct, not just “They went against the Church!)

https://www.traditioninaction.org/relig ... tians.html
ANTI-PROT AKTION

[Tarsonis]

You don't need to mention cherrypicking to discredit protestantism when its such a heresy

Okay, I’ll bite. How?
(And back up your positions with evidence that they are correct, not just “They went against the Church!)

They don’t have apostolic succession.

[Salus Maior]

Of course an African bishop is woke on the synod

Maintaining tradition and coherency keeps people in church, who knew.

[Angleter]

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/10/45846/ Pretty good article on the issues with the Catholic "Youth Synod".

At this rate they'll be finishing the synod with a Harlem Shake.

[Lower Nubia]

At this rate they'll be finishing the synod with a Harlem Shake.

Didn’t they have someone flipping around (some call it dancing) on the stage? And the first row of, clearly aged individuals, tried clapping along?

[Hakons]

Better to choose a branch that adheres to scripture, rather than resort to cherry-picking.
Which leaves us with Orthodox and Catholicism.

Every branch cherrypicks Scripture to support their beliefs. But go on, keep trying to discredit Protestantism.

You don't know much about Protestantism or Apostolic Christianity, so I'm not sure why you think you know enough to rofl. For one, Apostolic Christianity doesn't rely completely on scripture for our beliefs. We rely on Apostolic Tradition, which includes scripture but is not limited by it.

Cherrypicking is just a buzz word now when it comes to Scripture. Or course, the ultimate cherry pickers tend to be atheists scrabbling around for contextless verses. For as annoying internet atheists are, their arguments always seem stuck in Sola Scriptura Protestantism and are pretty easy to refute.

[Bienenhalde]

]
Okay, I’ll bite. How?
(And back up your positions with evidence that they are correct, not just “They went against the Church!)

They don’t have apostolic succession.

Anglicans and some Lutherans do have apostolic succession though.

[Tarsonis]

They don’t have apostolic succession.

Anglicans and some Lutherans do have apostolic succession though.

Apostolic succession is more than just a lineage to the Apostles, it’s a preserved succession, tradition and communion of bishops.

Lutherans have zero apostolic succession. Martin Luther was not a Bishop, he was not blessed with the Charism of infallibility, he possessed no succession to any apostle. He was merely a priest (presbetoroi) who decided he knew better than the bishops.


Anglicans forfeited apostolic succession when they broke from Rome, and replaced their head of a Church with the king. Further even more when they embraced all sorts of heretical teachings and practices like female priests and same sex marriage.

[The Archregimancy]

Anglicans and some Lutherans do have apostolic succession though.

Lutherans have zero apostolic succession.

Anglicans forfeited apostolic succession when they broke from Rome.

It perhaps would have been better for Bienenhalde to write 'Anglicans and some Lutherans claim to have apostolic succession though'.

I don't think we would dispute that the Anglican Church and some Lutheran jurisdictions lay claim to apostolic succession.

The catch is whether other, older, denominations that claim apostolic succession recognise the Anglican and Lutheran claims.

[Bienenhalde]

Anglicans and some Lutherans do have apostolic succession though.

Lutherans have zero apostolic succession.

Anglicans forfeited apostolic succession when they broke from Rome.

The Church of Sweden has apostolic succession from the Swedish bishops who became Lutheran during the Reformation. Some Lutheran clergy also have apostolic succession through Anglican or Union of Utrecht bishops. Also, if Anglican bishops who broke from Rome forfeited apostolic succession, then wouldn't that mean that Eastern Orthodox bishops who broke communion with Rome would not have apostolic succession either?

[Diopolis]

Anglicans and some Lutherans do have apostolic succession though.

Lutherans have zero apostolic succession.

Anglicans forfeited apostolic succession when they broke from Rome.

Anglicans lost their apostolic succession sometime in the 16th-17th centuries- when the last bishop ordained under the pre-reformed rite died. Lutherans are generally in the same situation.
However, some Anglicans and Lutherans now have valid orders derived from a schismatic Catholic group in the Netherlands. Many of these orders have subsequently lost their validity because they used a woman as consecrator, but some still have valid orders.

[Tarsonis]

Lutherans have zero apostolic succession.

Anglicans forfeited apostolic succession when they broke from Rome.

The Church of Sweden has apostolic succession from the Swedish bishops who became Lutheran during the Reformation. Some Lutheran clergy also have apostolic succession through Anglican or Union of Utrecht bishops. Also, if Anglican bishops who broke from Rome forfeited apostolic succession, then wouldn't that mean that Eastern Orthodox bishops who broke communion with Rome would not have apostolic succession either?

No, because the The Churches of the Eastern Orthodox are directly founded by the Apostles. Britain’s apostolic succession was linked as an extension of Rome and St. Peter’s chair. . They forfeited their apostolic succession when they left.

The Eastern Orthodox are in Schism with the true seat of the Church yes, but they have not slipped into heresy nor forfeited their apostolic succession.

Of course that’s my opinion. More traditional opinion is yes they have,

[Tarsonis]

Lutherans have zero apostolic succession.

Anglicans forfeited apostolic succession when they broke from Rome.

Anglicans lost their apostolic succession sometime in the 16th-17th centuries- when the last bishop ordained under the pre-reformed rite died. Lutherans are generally in the same situation.
However, some Anglicans and Lutherans now have valid orders derived from a schismatic Catholic group in the Netherlands. Many of these orders have subsequently lost their validity because they used a woman as consecrator, but some still have valid orders.

Valid orders is not enough, they must retain their communion with an Apostolic See. By breaking communion wit the Apostolic See of Rome they bear no Apostolic Succession even if they have orders we would consider valid.

[Tarsonis]

Lutherans have zero apostolic succession.

Anglicans forfeited apostolic succession when they broke from Rome.

It perhaps would have been better for Bienenhalde to write 'Anglicans and some Lutherans claim to have apostolic succession though'.

I don't think we would dispute that the Anglican Church and some Lutheran jurisdictions lay claim to apostolic succession.

The catch is whether other, older, denominations that claim apostolic succession recognise the Anglican and Lutheran claims.

True but I mean, I can lay claim to the thrones of France and Scotland, but it’s not like those claims will be recognized by any validating authority.

[The Archregimancy]

that Eastern Orthodox bishops who broke communion with Rome would not have apostolic succession either?

Let's try and avoid dragging this one up again, and instead of arguing over who broke with whom first, try and agree that we broke with each other.

That's me trying to be conciliatory.

Historically, Cardinal Humbert's excommunication of Patriarch Michael in 1054 came four days before the Patriarch retaliated by excommunicating the Cardinal and his fellow legates.

[Tarsonis]

that Eastern Orthodox bishops who broke communion with Rome would not have apostolic succession either?

Let's try and avoid dragging this one up again, and instead of arguing over who broke with whom first, try and agree that we broke with each other.

That's me trying to be conciliatory.

Historically, Cardinal Humbert's excommunication of Patriarch Michael in 1054 came four days before the Patriarch retaliated by excommunicating the Cardinal and his fellow legates.

Confounded by the fact that the Pope was dead at the time.

[Lord Dominator]

It perhaps would have been better for Bienenhalde to write 'Anglicans and some Lutherans claim to have apostolic succession though'.

I don't think we would dispute that the Anglican Church and some Lutheran jurisdictions lay claim to apostolic succession.

The catch is whether other, older, denominations that claim apostolic succession recognise the Anglican and Lutheran claims.

True but I mean, I can lay claim to the thrones of France and Scotland, but it’s not like those claims will be recognized by any validating authority.

Assuming you are not in fact some long-lost heir (somehow) to either, claims to Apostolic succession by the relevant churches at least have more validity in that those churches had it in some form (well, some of them) at some point