Originally posted by ben1xy:
Yup, i reflected on what you pointed out. After some googling, i
acknowledge the short sightedness on my part and that yours is a
valid stand. Looking at wiki, it seems to corroborate what u've
mentioned but yet, there seems to be a disagreement on the
'meaningfulness'
Taken from wiki,
In episcopal churches, the Apostolic Succession is understood to be
the basis of the authority of bishops (the episcopate).
Specifically in the case of the Catholic Church, the Apostolic
Succession as passed on through Saint Peter is also the basis for
the specific claim of papal primacy. Within the Anglo-Catholic
section of the Anglican Communion this is seen more as a symbolic
precedence, not unlike the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of
Constantinople. In any event, all these communions recognize
Apostolic Succession as the determining criterion of a particular
group's legitimacy as a catholic Church.
While many churches within the historic episcopate argue that holy
orders are valid only through apostolic succession, most Protestant
Churches would deny that the apostolicity of the Church rests on an
unbroken episcopacy. They generally hold that one important
qualification of the apostles was that they were chosen directly by
Jesus and that they witnessed the resurrected Christ. According to
this understanding, the work of these twelve (and the Apostle
Paul), together with the prophets of the twelve tribes of Israel,
provide the doctrinal foundation for the whole church of subsequent
history through the Scriptures of the Bible. [b]To share with the
apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the
Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is the only sense in
which apostolic succession is meaningful, because it is in this
sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth (an
extension of the Reformation doctrines of sola fide and sola
scriptura). The most meaningful apostolic succession for most
Protestants, then, is the faithful succession of apostolic
teaching. There is, of course, much disagreement among
various Protestant churches about the exact content of apostolic
teaching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Succession
What do our other Christian brothers have to say about this?
[/b]
***I was just reading this in Wiki and about to post the same
thing, haha
seems like there is a difference in this understanding of Apostolic
Succession
1) the physical succession through the ordaination of Bishops
(apostles -> bishops -> bishops ...etc)
"Those who hold to the importance
of episcopal apostolic succession would counter the above by
appealing to the New Testament, which, they say, implies a personal
apostolic succession (from Paul to Timothy and Titus, for example)
and which states that Jesus gave the Apostles a "blank cheque" to
lead the Church as they saw fit under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit."
2) through the succession of apostolic teachings
" To share with the apostles the
same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to
receive the same Holy Spirit, is the only sense in which apostolic
succession is meaningful, because it is in this sense only that men
have fellowship with God in the truth"
The former appeal mainly to the catholics and orthodox, while the
latter appeal more to the protestants.
