Talk:Apostolic succession/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

A modest proposal

I think that this article should lose all of the "controversy" between Catholic and Protestant views as expressed in the horrendous to-and-fro. It is inviting an editor to demand the addition of one more go-round, of steadily less and less well sourced argumentation, and it detracts from the coherence of the article. My proposal is to radically prune this--leaving the non-AS view, such as it is, as a simple explanation that churches outside the AS do not view it as crucial to the existence of the church, and object to its necessity. Much of the problem in turn is caused by the redirect from Apostolicity, which only encourages this article to become an unworkable behemoth. So that redirect should be abandoned, and a new article on Apostolicity should be created, and can even have many of the ideas (if not the horrid to-and-fro) from the existing article which need to be pruned from here. Tb (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest """"controversy"""" within four layers of citation marks. Being a Lutheran I deem the topic essentially a non-issue. I think the article is a general mess, however, since it doesn't distinguish for whome "Apostolic Succession" is important, and who might consider it important whether "some" Lutheran churches carries "Apostolic Succession" or not. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A different point of view: include Calvin Reform positions

The idea of a separate article for Apostolicity (by creating a stub, and with a top notation here referring to this other article) has merit and should be done. Thanks are due Tb for bringing to light that a Wikipedia search for "Apostolicity" redirects to Apostolic Succession. In fact, it greatly explains the presence and vigor of the anti-A.S. commentary here.

Yet I do not consider incurable, or of no value, what Tb above caricatures as "horrendous to-and-fro" between Catholic and Protestant. Rather the substantive content of the several argumentative sections contain much of merit (see below), and can be made acceptable if pruned and transformed by restatement, e.g., in the form of a neutral array of rational and objective propositions. Also, by eliminating the partisan debating points, "over the top" elements, and exaggerations, one would also eliminate the patches of "attractive nuissance" that currently lurk in this article. Tb will hopefully eliminate these someday--but with proper discretion and awareness.

Too, neither should "Apostolic Succession" be trimmed of the Calvin Reform's historic contra positions and its modern objections. Because A.S. is a key issue of church governance relevant for all of Christianity, all the church positions should be presented for a fair and inclusive Wikipedia article; otherwise it may result in a "well-comouflaged" P.O.V. for those churches pro A.S., which would be inappropriate.

Presentation of Calvin Reform's position, and its spin offs, can be made in sections discussing the positions of various contra churches, as churches. Can be presented without advertising them as anti-A.S. arguments or as an invitation to further polemical display (this was partially achieved by the rewrite of September 2007).

This next is very important. Apparently recent research within the Calvin Reform churches raises an interesting, and significant question: whether or not A.S. works to further doctrinal coherence among the various churches who practice it. This is stated beginning at the third paragraph in the section "A Protestant Reformation definition of Apostolic Succession", where its greater relevance is buried in an energetic polemic. (This contribution is marred by such high-handed pronouncements (following the bullets) as: that A.S. is therefore "false" and "meaningless".) Nonetheless this question is important and should be saved by its excision, then stripped of its polemical elements, leaving the sequence of examples of doctrinal divergence among churches practicing A.S. For P.O.V. balance, a counter-example of the divergence among contra A.S. churches should be presented (this was recently accomplished, but unfortunately soon deleted.) This challenging question brings some modern methods to the issue of Apostolic Succession. An obstinate traditionalist, of course, may be impelled to "overlook" it. Yet tradition and illumination are not inherent antagonists. As Wikipedia should strive always to rise to excellence, and avoid P.O.V., this question should be made a separate section in this article.

These general approaches were discussed some time ago on this discussion page. Please see above Recent Changes (September 2007). Much of it is still current. For one, the lead section should not state the contra position, but rather the traditional doctrine.

"Clean up" should preserve content of merit, but transform what may now appear as rough diamonds obscured by polemic. "Clean up" should not be used as a cover for P.O.V. Thanks would be due whoever does it well. Elfelix (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely that there is plenty of merit in the existing to-and-fro sections which sholud be preserved. It is the to-and-fro character which must go, but not necessarily all the material in them. Some should stay here, and some should go to a separate Apostolicity article. Key, however, is the recognition that there are at least four positions about this whole topic:

• Apostolic succession is almost identical to the historic succession of bishops, and is of very great importance in apostolicity;
• Apostolic succession is not the same thing at all as the historic succession of bishops, but is something quite different, and is of very great importance;
• Apostolic succession is the historic succession of bishops, and is not very important;
• Apostolic succession is unimportant, even to have a definition of it.

The first of these is characteristic of catholic churches of whatever sort. The second is characteristic of Lutherans. The third is characteristic of Calvin. The fourth is characteristic of more recent movements. Methodists are an odd-ball collection, very hard to place on this issue. The lead should certainly acknowledge both 1 and 2 here--we can't adopt the viewpont that the Lutheran "succession in doctrine" is not real apostolic succession, because that would be a WP:POV advancing the catholic perspective. We need to describe both of those, then, and give each space in the lead. Adherents of the third are mostly seeking to explain why (in their view) their churches are "apostolic" though not having "apostolic succession" in any way they care about. (Though in practice, they may adopt Lutheran views informally on the point.) These people have a cogent criticism to offer against some of the claims made by group (1) [not so much against group (2)] and we should report them. But keep in mind that the subject of the article is not "ecclesiology", but specifically, apostolic succession. So in the following pattern: 1) group (1) says AS is crucial because it does X; 2) group (3) says it doesn't actually do X; we have a reasonable article. But a further statement, that non-AS churches also don't do X, is irrelevant, because doing X isn't the subject. Put differently, if X is advanced by nothing, whether AS or not, then the only part which is relevant here is the part which is about AS. In other words, it is relevant whether AS prevents divergence in doctrine. It is not relevant whether other things do, because the topic is not divergence in doctrine, but AS. Tb (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The best place to start might be by clarifying the distinction between the "apostolic" nature of a church communion, and apostolic succession of bishops. Creating a separate article for the first, as suggested by Tb, would seem a great way to start. We could perhaps even underline the distinction by renaming this one something along the lines of "Apostolic succession of bishops". (After all, the very first sentence in this article says "Apostolic Succession is the doctrine in some of the more ancient Christian communions that the succession of bishops, in uninterrupted lines, is historically traceable back to the original twelve Apostles.")

Once that's done, my sense is that unwinding some of the more complicated swirling around in this article will be a lot easier. So, my suggestion would be to go ahead and create the new article, take a first shot at divvying up the material between the two, and then see where we are. We don't have to figure out everything at once. There seems to be agreement that the split makes sense and would improve things. EastTN (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed larger change

Doesn't "Apostolicity as doctrinal continuity" belong somewhere near the bottom of the article not straight after the intro? The section is long woolly and badly worded and not so directly relevant (it is a substitute doctrine really). --BozMo talk 14:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

LDS claim to apostolic succession

An IP editor just added (and I just removed, for want of reliable sources) "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also claims apostolic succession through an event which they claim occurred in the year 1830 when Peter, James, and John of the original Twelve Apostles visited the Prophet Joseph Smith and conferred the Melchizedek priesthood upon him by the laying on of hands.[1]"

The cited source is a draft article in another wiki, which I feel falls well short of the standards required by WP:V. I've moved it here rather than just deleting it because I see that there's been previous discussion of the LDS views, and it may be that other editors who've been around this article for longer than me can very quickly add a suitable reference that would allow the text to be reinstated. I'd also like to see mentioned, in the interest of maintaining a balanced article, whether this is a generally held view within the LDS or whether there are opposing views as well, as there seems to be some controversy about it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberframe (talk • contribs) 18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed Section on a Traditionalist Response Here

I removed the section below because it seems to belong here, on the discussion page, rather than in the main article. It is apparently a response from a traditionalist Catholic to the summation of an article by an evangelical apologist, called "What Evangelicals Should Know About the Orthodox Church," that I put in the preceding section, together with some supporting links, to illustrate how evangelical Protestants dismiss the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.

I think that this addition to the article has two serious flaws, aside from its inappropriate style: it contains assertions that are plainly not true, and it speaks from a distinctly Catholic perspective.

The claim that Apostolic Succession only has to do with the sacramental authority of the bishops and has nothing to do with the bishop's teachings is plainly not the traditional understanding of large chunks of the ancient/medieval Christian world. The article itself notes that Eastern Orthodox claim Catholicism lost apostolic succession due to its doctrinal innovations. The Roman Catholic understanding may be that apostolic succession has nothing to do with sound doctrinal teaching - which strikes me as odd, since it would be tantamount to saying that the bishops aren't trustworthy pastors, which would undercut most of Catholicism's apologetics - but it is not the "traditional" understanding unless you consider Roman Catholicism to be "traditional" Christianity. Some doubtlessly do regard the RCC as the final authority on such matters, but that is not reason enough to put it in Wikipedia. I would allow that such a rejoinder can be put into the article if it as labeled as "the Catholic perspective," but not as simply "the traditional" one.

The claim that there are "thousands" of denominations that all started from doctrinal disagreements is also doubtful. Most denominations started simply due churches organizing themselves in a geographic area or among specific populations. Most congregational churches do not even have "denominations," but have simple networks that don't claim to be "churches" in the sense that Catholics use the word.--ManicBrit (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Commentary on semantics and on concord

The above contra position clearly rejects Apostolic Succession as traditionally understood (see above "The Traditional Doctrine"). Yet the contra position goes on to articulate an entirely new and completely different definition of Apostolic Succession, one that references loyalty to the teaching of the apostles. Thus "succession" would not in any way refer to which person will next occupy a leadership position in the church and its theological character, but instead refer to the theological understanding of the church based on its teachings. Of course, each church freely defines or redefines for itself its own understanding of any theological term it uses; in which case, confusion may result if it is not remembered that the same word or phrase may mean something entirely different.

Disagreement is extremely common among the various Protestant denominations as to the interpreted content of the Christian teaching that commands loyalty.

In the apostolic Christian view, disagreement also can result among traditionalists as to the identity of bishops under Apostolic Succession, but this rarely happens, and, even if it does, can quickly be dealt with by those of undisputed apostolic authority. Traditionalist Apostolic Succession does result in an ecclesiastical structure that provides the medium for settling many difficult matters regarding the interpreted content of Christian doctrine or teaching. Because of this, The apostolic churches remain far less divided than the Protestant denominations, which currently number in the thousands, and split often over doctrinal disputes.

I'm all for this dismal article getting better, but your procedure isn't good. Basically, you removed a section because it expresses a POV contrary to the one you hold. You say it was bad to have here b/c it "speaks from a distinctly Catholic perspective". Well, golly, it was a response to your section which, by your own admission, speaks from a distinctly evangelical perspective. Here's the deal: the whole "presenting of perspectives" in this article is dismal, and needs to stop. Your recent edits are hardly going to help; you simply want the last word to look evangelical, and you've now gone to the extreme of blatting out the part you disagree with, simply on the grounds that you disagree with it. I'm no fan of that section, but I also think the section it was trying to respond to was equally bogus garbage. Tb (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) Several years ago I realized that a perplexing problem with this article was the fiery split between those churches practicing an "ecclesiastic" APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, i.e., who have traditional bishops, versus "evangelicals" who seemed to have an strong adverstion to traditional bishops (traditional here meaning the practice of the ancient churches, e.g., Orthodox and Catholic). From reading the 'contra' position, I gathered also that "evangelicals" are equally attracted to the notion of APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE, but seem to resent the word "apostolic" being used for bishops. Hence the continuous fued between traditional doctirne of APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION and the notion of APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE of the evangelicals. The latter being doctrine ahistorically linked to the apostles as being similar in truth content. The former referring to an historic "succession" of ecclesiastics by laying on of hands.

(2) Hence, many evangelical contributers insist as a issue of reformation-era dogma on their right to re-define the meaning of APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION as APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE, but by their POV count it not as a re-definition, but merely as finally setting matters straight. Nonetheless, the POV of a traditionalist would regard it as redefining the meaning of APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. Therefore, thus and so, several years ago I attempted to pacify somewhat the rank discord then even more rife in the article. I wrote the above "definitions" section. I was struggling to find common ground so that at least we (traditionalists and evangelicals) could agree to disagree, instead of constantly quarreling; the "definitions" section admittedly could be improved. Yet I can't help but think it's outright elimination was inappropriate and disagreeable, and worked a disservice.

(3) Following the sense of this realization, I immediately agreed when last year the user Tb suggested splitting off from this article a new article APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE, where evangelicals and others opposed to bishops could present their thoughtful reflections on nature and necessity of following the doctrinces of the original apostles. Such a split would be a major project. No one has yet done so. Elfelix (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC) 24 February 2010 Nonetheless I admit I have learned much from my encounters with the harsh disagreements presented in this article. Paradoxically, after meditation and prayer, these encounters have led me to a greater understanding and appreciation for the struggles of all Christians on the path up the mountain. Elfelix (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC) "You will know them by their love." Elfelix (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

dava4444's comments on Apostolic_succession#Apostolic_Founders (moved from article)

this part needs expanded, there ARE other churches, such as I think? the chuch at antioch that claims succession to the throne of peter and paul, and I think? peter has another church that is not catholic. dava4444 @ 01.07.09 @11:48am /addition:could someone expend this to it's own page? with histories, traditions (verifiable), each Papal, Patriach, Catholicus degree, concering each other. thanks dava4444 @ 06.07.09 @19:17 gmt

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberframe (talk • contribs) 19:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mormons and Unitarians Are Not Protestants

I removed this section, which was an attempt by a Catholic apologist to downplay the doctrinal disagreements listed between Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, and Catholic churches:

• • • Yet if one stands back and surveys the coherence of the ancient churches who remained faithful to traditional apostolic succession, one finds a general agreement over the course of two millennia regarding the historic core of church doctrine, e.g., in the liturgy, in the sacraments, concerning Mary, regarding the monasteries, as well as in church governance, notwithstanding their well-articulated differences. On the other hand, in the 500 years since the Reformation, the Protestant churches not following ecclesiastic apostolic succession have come to differ greatly in fundamentals, e.g., the Unitarians whose name reflects their rejection of the Trinity, and the Mormons who claim to have discovered new Scriptures on par with the Bible. While for the most part all practicing many of the traditions of Chirstianity, a minority of such 'contra' Protestants have also become, for good or ill, a source of profound innovation.

Mormons and Unitarians are not Christians, but different religions. It is doubtful that Unitarians can even be categorized as "Abrahamic," since this sect looks to Buddhism, Wicca, atheist existentialist philosophies, and others sources besides the Bible. While the Mormons may try to label themselves Christian, they are most definitely not "Protestants" since they do not accept Sola Scriptura, but accept additional scriptures such as the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. No mainstream Christian theological body regards the Mormons as a branch of the orthodox Christian tradition, even within the Protestant spectrum.

As a Protestant in the sola scriptura tradition, I can more easily categorize the Mormons as the same type of religion as Catholicism - it too is a religion led by an infallible religious officer, with priests who serve as mediators, and mysterious sacraments that are necessary for salvation. Like Catholicism's intellectualized, propositional Scholastic theology which rejects negative theological reflections and mystical approaches to God and asserts that God is an object of intellectual inquiry and verbal description, Mormonism posits a limited God who is material in nature. The attempts by Catholic Apologists to categorize Baptists and Evangelicals with Mormons and Moonies is either so misinformed that it means Catholic Apologists don't understand sola scriptura, or else it is a blatantly dishonest attempt to muddy terms and language so that criticisms of the Catholic Church cannot be clearly expressed and understood within the semantic limitations imposed on the minds of Catholics. In either case, since Mormons and Unitarians are irrelevant to discussions of Protestantism and sola scriptura, I have removed the paragraph.--ManicBrit (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Addressed to the user ManicBrit: See my discussion on another one of your deletions re "semantics" below [Removed section on traditionalist respose here]. In my humble opinion you show the ability for good writing and information from time to time, yet more than once your too strong POV worked to trump your good sense in this Wikipedia context. Re above, (1a) you object to attributing to Protestants the post-reformation split by once-upon-a-time Protestants, i.e., the Mormons. You fail to acknowledge (1b) that the Unitarians originally based their denial of the trinity upon their reading of scripture--yet you cite sola scriptura as your rationale. Plus (1c) you attempt to put words in my mouth re "Moonies" (about whom I am unfamiliar). In your apparent (1d) scorn for Catholics to me you appear like a 'bigot' unfortunately, that is, as one self-selected to speak for God; on the other hand, perhaps you were just venting under the pretext of announcing the Truth (but it was only "your truth" that concerned you). Also of importance (2) you deleted the other half (on the coherence of the ancient church doctrines) without any reason or excuse. In general, (3) your way of justifying yourself seems to indicate you confuse Protestant with "evangelical" and both with a neutral standard of objectivity versus the implied odious malfeasance of "Catholic Apologists". I submit, however, that "Evangelical Apologists" such as yourself can be reasonable and objective, as can Catholic. Elfelix (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC) I read again in your self-description: "I loathe BS and people who try to tweak Wikipedia to further their pet agendas or candidates." Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ManicBrit" By this quote, in combination with your above inaccuracies and scorn in service to your own "pet agendas", you betray a double dealing, or evidence your inability at times to see yourself objectively. Yet, there but for the grace of God go I. We all have potential "blind spots" we are constantly challenged to maintain within our conscious awareness, less we become unintentional hypocrites (and so project our shadow onto the other). Me, too. One of the great gifts Wikipedia allows its user 'editors' is to learn of their own fallibilities (while in the bruhaha of the moment) and later to repent, and so to move a little closer to the calm radiance of Divine Light. You, too. Elfelix (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, I never said anything against "Catholics." I wrote the article on Cultural Catholics, which hasn't been substantially revised by Catholic readers, who find it accurate and tasteful. I DO have a distaste for "Catholic Apologists," who NPR reporter (and Catholic) John Allen critically refers to as "Evangelical Catholics," who have responded to the threats of secularization and religious pluralism by mounting a triumphalistic attack on other Christian denominations. I'm sorry, but I don't consider people like John Salza, who writes that I have no legitimate freedom of religion and that governments have the right to imprison and torture me for expressing non-Catholic views, to be "reliable sources" who should be treated with respect - any more than I regard "The Turner Diaries" as a reliable source of American race relations. During my fleeting contributions to Wikipedia, I have found these "apologists" adding denunciations of adult baptism to the Baptist pages, posting long bulleted lists of every conceivable apologetic point against Sola Scriptura, and doing all sorts of things against the best interests of Wikipedia. In my more direct mano-a-mano battles with these folks on YouTube and other social networking sites, I post things that say "Protestants have a right to worship without being subject to state violence," and get retorts like "The existence of your heretical churches is a sin against God and the one true faith" and "Jesus came to start a totalitarian state." I don't trust these same people to make the best edits on Wikipedia with "neutrality" at heart.

Now, to your points:

• You referred to various sects who are "innovative." The Moonies (a.k.a, Unification Church) clearly fit that description.
• The Mormons do not stem from the Reformation, except in the sense that the original Mormon settlers were mostly of English and Scot-Irish descent. They do not consider themselves "Protestant," and are not regarded as "Protestant" by the World Council of Churches or any other ecumenical body. You can't blame "sola scriptura" for a Vermont-born con-man who claims to find additional scriptures buried in Palmyria, New York. Long before Martin Luther even wrote, there were Cathars, Montanists, Bogomils, Paulicians, etc., all of whom came off the Catholic/Orthodox family tree without any help from Luther. The Mormons plainly fit that mold. If you want to use "Protestant" as a synonym for "non-Catholic," then you must define what you mean when you use the word, and note that many sources that discuss "Protestantism" in regards to sola scriptura, sola fide, and priest of all believers do not use "Protestant" the way you do. Why you want to burden yourself with such semantic difficulties is beyond me.
• The Unitarians may have started out as Protestants. But they quickly voted themselves out of Christianity in toto, rejecting the Protestant solas and the ecumenical creeds. Again, like the Cathars and Bogomils, they are simply proof that people develop new ideas and evolve.

In regards to my NPOV, well, we're all only human and I try my best. I do think that most of my NPOV comments appear in the discussion sections, however. --ManicBrit (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir: Apologectics is an ancient calling which dates back to the early church. By its very nature Catholic Apologists include esteemed theologians of every age. Yet you without explanation earlier used this revered term to refer to what you evidence as disruptive elements on Wikipedia; you thereby would dignify such reputed zealots with a title far above them; doing so shows poor judgment. I am, however, not familiar with John Salza and associates. May you yourself and those who surround you find blessings and peace all the days of your lives. Elfelix (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalists and the Unification Church

I think we also need to be clear that despite the similarities in their names, and the fact that they are probably not considered "Protestants" or "mainstream Christians"—or even "Christians" at all—by some people, Unitarian Universalists and the Unification Church are not the same. The insertion of "Moonies," i.e., members of Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, into one of the responses above, which had up to that point only discussed the Mormons and the Unitarian Universalists, may make people believe there is some attempt to identify one with the other. 64.162.197.48 (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a problem. Unification Church (or Moonies) isn't mentioned in the article. Cresix (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

LDS (Mormons) understanding (#2)

Latest addition on Mormon interpretation of Jesus promises may sound harsh to some. I don't intend it to be NPOV, just trying to state an LDS view as accurately as possible (even though it is still kind of sketchy). Please feel free to edit tone, style etc. Thanks. B 01:31 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think the bits about alternate interpretations are fine, even informative, but the character attacks are a bit much, especially given all the suspicions and accusations surrounding Joseph Smith. Wesley 16:33 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Of course, there is quite a difference between speculatory and generally contested accusations (as of Joseph's misdeeds) and confessed sin (like Pope Alexander VI's adultery). If folks look at who is doing the accusing and why as closely as they scrutinize Joseph, I'm confident folks would come away with a fairer perception of the man. In my readings of primary sources both of and by Joseph, he appears as a man of integrity. But even if a person acknowledges that Joseph was not a charlatan, crook, swindler, liar, deluded, conspirator-to-murder, adulterer, etc as some have accused, some people still consider, for example, Joseph's practice of polygamy as sin although to Mormons it is an act of obedience. B 20:47 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'll redact what I think goes over the top (if you think more needs done there, please go ahead) until/unless I/someone comes up with something non-inflammatory that gets the point across.B 19:03, 16 July 2003 (UTC)

Apostolicity as doctrinal continuity POV

Hi all, I have tagged this section as POV, but in fact POV is spread throughout the article, which overall is, imo, scrappy. Please help, but, again imo, the whole thing needs a re-write. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to specify. The tag says to look at the discussion on the talk page, but as of yet, there is nothing to talk about other than that you think it is pov. What is pov? In what way? In what direction? We need more specifics. Until then, I'm removing the tag.Farsight001 (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine - actually I think the discussion above: [2] says it all. This sort of article is notoriously tricky. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Infallibility of Apostolic Succession

What I miss in the article is a discussion of the question of infallibility of apostolic succession. Does the doctrine of apostolic succession teach that apostolic succession has certain infallibility, and if so, in what sense is it infallible? Would the succession of the Roman Catholic popes be regarded as infallible from the Roman Catholic perspective? What is the spectrum of positions with respect to this question? How does the doctrine of apostolic succession relate to the principle of Sola Scriptura? Theophilius (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a memory of having read that Augustin claimed that apostolic succession continued to be valid, even if some successors committed the unforgiveable sin of "working undercover", or, in other words, denying to be a Christian (and thereby saving hios life). If my memory is correct, might this be the kind of stuff you're looking for? JoergenB (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

In the Catholic sense, infallibility doesn't really come into it. Catholics (or, at any rate, the Papacy - not the same thing) use this word to mean that, in doctrinal matters, the authority of the Pope (the serving Pope, moreover) cannot be overcome by anything - not by argument, persuasion, violence or even Christ himself coming down to earth and saying so. In other words, it doesn't matter what John Paul II may have said on such-and-such a subject, because if Benedict XVI has something to say on that subject, his opinion wins the day.

As for Sola Scriptura, well, it rather depends which Scriptura you consider to be Sola. Protestantism has largely dispensed with the Apocrypha (even though everyone nowadays knows the word actually means for the initiated, instead of probably not true) - but seems to be going about with its fingers in its ears going, "La la, I'm not listening to modern scholarship!"

If, strictly speaking, "It's in the KJV Authorized Version so it must be kosher" (so to speak), does that mean we ought to be venerating The Book of Common Prayer and Strong's Concordance, too? Where, I suppose I'm asking, does the Bible stop?

Nuttyskin (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

R C splint churches

The Old Catholic Churches and the Liberal Catholic Churches claim to be apostolic, as far as I understand. I suppose that the Anglicans do accept at least those claims of the Union of Utrecht (Old Catholic), since they are in full communion with them. I remember from my own youth that liberal catholics tended to put quite some emphasis on their possession of apostolic succession.

There may be more "apostolic splinters" of this kind, which do not quite classify as "protestants", and absolutely not as "lutherans". I think they should be mentioned somewhere here. JoergenB (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no history section?

Why is there no history section? Was Irenaeus the first to hold this view? state this view? use the term? Who did? Exacly what it Irenaeus and others indicate? ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 23:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The history is discussed throughout the article. If you're referring to history before Irenaeus, he lived within about 100 years from the time that Christ was on Earth, within a generation or two from the original twelve apostles. I'm no expert on the history of the Church, but I suspect the written history before then was rather sketchy. I think the means of transmitting apostolic succession were passed on by oral tradition without much being written down about procedures for ordination before then. I think if there were more in writing about that issue from the first century, we might not have the extent of disagreements about the doctrine that exists today. But I'd love to hear a response from others who know more about Church history. Cresix (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thelema

I'm a member of a church called Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, which holds regular performances of the Gnostic Mass and practices a religion called Thelema. Apostolic succession is a core belief in EGC, though we derive our succession from our Prophet Aleister Crowley (though, incidentally, we also have succession all the way from Paul). Our doctrine of apostolic succession is very similar to that of the Christians, so much so that I don't think it warrants its own article. Due to its importance to our religion, however, I do believe it warrants mention on Wikipedia. I'd like to add a section briefly mentioning that this concept is found outside of Christianity. If anyone here thinks that this warrants a separate article or should be handled differently, let's discuss it here.

One stated purpose of EGC is "...to restore Christianity to its real status as a solar-phallic religion," and as such, many of us consider our practices to be more authentically Christian than most Christian practices today.

- Nanamin (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I notice that the EGC article doesn't mention apostolic succession as a "major spiritual tenet". If it is a major spiritual tenet, that article might want to say so. (I almost deleted the EGC section here on that basis, but left it in because the section appears to be sourced). By the way, how many members does the EGC have? --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Anglicanism

It's important not to overstate the unanimity of opinion regarding the apostolic succession the Church of England throughout its history. The matter was greatly debated among Anglican divines in the 17th and 18th century, and was an especially fraught bone of contention during the Bangorian controversy and the debates regarding ersastianism in the early 18th century. Tory high churchmen and non-jurors strongly emphasized the apostolic succession--important to their vision of the integrity of the priestly office and the relative independence of the church from secular authority. In contrast, the whiggish, low-church opinion prevailing among the church hierarchy (especially bishops appointed under William and Mary and the early Hanoverian monarchs) in the 18th century tended to downplay or even deny the apostolic succession in favor of civil supremacy in ecclesiastical matters. For these erastians the right of ecclesiastical prerogative was not passed down through an unbroken line of bishops since the apostles, but was exercised by the sovereign as law-giver (on the order of moses). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.21.77 (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Doctrinal differences presented as disproof of apostolic succession

I see that my edit was immediately reverted, presumably because it was believed to be vandalism. What do other editors think of it? Esoglou (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Springnuts for bringing this to my attention. I was RC patrolling at the time and mistakenly identified the edits as vandalism (and reverted using rollback, hence the "minor edit" thing). I definitely should have read closer before reverting. My mistake, and my apologies. :) Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Lede + Thelema and Mormons

The lede defines "apostolic succession" as being a continuous succession from the Apostles down to the present. The sections on the Mormons and Thelema/E.C.G clearly state that their beliefs are very different, so it seems that logically they are out of place here in this article. Should they not be transferred to more appropriate locations with the corresponding disambiguations if necessary?

While on the subject of the lede I have amplified it to specify more clearly the basic understanding of the concept and the fact that some not all writers assert that "through consecration to the episcopal office they [bishops] inherit from the apostles the transmission of the Holy Ghost which empowers them for the performance of their work".

I will also try and work up the first part of the section on Anglican Churches bearing in mind the comments made on this page.Jpacobb (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Revision: New Section on Early Church + Anglicanism

I have started a new section on the Early Church (it is at present hidden as a comment). When I have completed it, I will remove similar references in other sections unless they are vital to the argument at that particular point. The information on Anglicanism is inadequate, it even included contradictions and there is a certain amount of repetition. I have done a first round of tidying up but more remains to be done. I then intend to expand the Anglican section to cover the varying attitudes to A.S.Jpacobb (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wesley and Praemunire

I have marked this as dubious since, whatever a couple of sources may say, it is hard to see how the Acts, passed in the second half of the 14th century, might be relevant since they were intended to limit legal appeals to the Bishop of Rome and the Vatican and Erasmas claimed to be a Greek Orthodox bishop. There is a reference in the 1393 act to "elsewhere"; but, even so, it would have been difficult for the Crown to prove that its justice or interests had been prejudiced within the meaning of the Act by the ordination of Wesley to the episcopate. Furthermore, as far as I can find out they had been dormant since the reign of James I. The most the historian can say, even if it is assumed the original source is correct, is that Wesley thought he might fall foul of the Praemunire Acts. Jpacobb (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Lede

At least it's concise now, but I challenge anyone to support the 2nd sentence from the sources 1 & 2. And what does "indirectly through the initiative of an apostolic see" mean, anyway?

I'm not looking up sources 3 and 4 because I really believe the 3rd sentence is too questionable to be in the lede. Whether the sources said it or not, I am inclined to amend this section by adding a counter-claim, but I think it wd b better to have that discussion elsewhere in the article. Vikslen (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The ODCC entry (I have the 3rd edition), in the 3rd sentence, states "These bishops have been regarded as succeeding the apostles because: (1) they perform the functions of the apostles; (2) their commission goes back to the apostles; (3) they succeed one another in the same sees ... and (4) by some writers because through their consecration ... they inherit from the apostles .. the Holy Spirit which empowers them."

However, "succeeding one another in the same sees" is not the most common understanding of apostolic succession. In the last several centuries it has usually been understood as a matter of succession from consecrating bishops (not usually or necessarily the predecessor in the same see) to the new bishop. This understanding is conveyed , I believe, by item 4 in the ODCC quote above, but is more clearly put in the Gonzalez reference (which may be viewed online). (I suspect the Catholic Encyclopedia states this as the main or only meaning....)

The sentence "Bishops are seen not as succeeding to the apostolic office" may be controverted and doesn't belong in this section. Item 1 from ODCC above appears to contradict it. comment added by Vikslen (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Vikslen (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well-founded statements. I have made changes to reflect them. Esoglou (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Methodism

I leave it to Anupam to decide on second thoughts whether it was better to revert to duplicating the citation and quotation from Whalen, to giving the impression that British Methodists too petitioned to receive the sacraments from the local preachers who conducted worship services and revivals, to writing "Wesley assumed the power to ordained", "Holy Ghose" ... Esoglou (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Esoglou, thanks for noticing these errors. I've made the corrections you've suggested. If there's anything else, feel free to let me know! God bless, Anupam^Talk 03:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did think that, when you corrected the occurrences of the phrase "the power to ordained", you would have noticed the repetitions of Whalen's quotation and would have again combined them, as I did, by "ref name". In my opinion, it would have been better to let it be seen a little more clearly than now that there seem to be two opinions on whether John Wesley ordained as a bishop (insisted on by a first series of citations) or as a presbyter (insisted on by citing scriptural and historical arguments for ordination by presbyters and mentioning present Methodist practice). I remember also that I thought the text would be better without such repeated honorifics as "Rev", "Rt Rev" (sometimes placed before and after sentences set off unnecessarily as quotations of extreme importance). There may have been other changes too that I thought were improvements but that I don't remember now: the question does not interest me enough to go searching for them. Esoglou (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion to combine the references User:Esoglou; I made the edit to do so. I think that rest of the paragraphs read fine with the honorifics as they help distinguish between a bishop and a priest. I hope you have a nice day! God bless, Anupam^Talk 17:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, but will not pursue. I reciprocate your good wishes. May you have a nice day, and many of them. May God bless you. Esoglou (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Apostolic Founders

erm.. why 'claims'? smacks of skepticism if you ask me. something neutral would be better.. I changed this once before but someone changed back. can we get consensus please?

Dava4444 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well off hand, Apostolic succession#Apostolic Founders points out that Rome "claims to have been founded by Saint Peter" (the claim, early on, was to have been founded by Peter and Paul) but for the church in Rome to have been founded by Peter is almost impossible. Quoting from Early centers of Christianity:

''Paul's [[Epistle to the Romans]] {{bibleverse-nb|Romans||16}} (''c'' 58) attests to a large Christian community already there<ref name="Oxford:Rome">The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), article ''Rome (early Christian)''</ref> but does not mention [[Saint Peter|Peter]]. The tradition that the [[See of Rome]] was founded as an organized Christian community by Peter and Paul and that its [[episcopate]] owes to them its origin can be traced as far back as [[Christianity in the 2nd century|second-century]] [[Irenaeus]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html |title=Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.3.2 |quote=...[the] Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. ...The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.}}</ref> Irenaeus does not say that either Peter or Paul was "bishop" of the Church in Rome, and some historians have questioned whether Peter spent much time in Rome before his martyrdom.<ref name=BrownMeier>{{cite book |authors=Brown, Raymond E. and Meier, John P. |title=Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Christianity |publisher=Paulist Press |year=1983 |quote=As for Peter, we have no knowledge at all of when he came to Rome and what he did there before he was martyred. Certainly he was ''not'' the original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and therefore ''not'' the founder of the church of Rome in that sense). There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church—a claim not made till the third century. Most likely he did not spend any major time at Rome before 58 when Paul wrote to the Romans, and so it may have been only in the 60s and relatively shortly before his martyrdom that Peter came to the capital.}}</ref>''

''[[Oscar Cullmann]] sharply rejected the claim that Peter [[Historical development of the doctrine of Papal Primacy|began the papal succession]],<ref name=Time>"In the life of Peter there is no starting point for a chain of succession to the leadership of the church at large." While Cullman believed the Matthew 16:18 text is entirely valid and is in no way spurious, he says it cannot be used as "warrant of the papal succession."— "Religion: Peter & the Rock." ''Time," December 7, 1953. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,890753-1,00.html Time.com] Accessed October 8, 2009</ref> and concludes that while Peter ''was'' the [[Primacy of Simon Peter|original head of the apostles]], Peter was not the founder of any visible church succession.<ref name=Time/><ref name=Cullman>Cullman, Oscar "In the New Testament [Jerusalem] is the only church of which we hear that Peter stood at its head. Of other episcopates of Peter we know nothing certain. Concerning Antioch, indeed ... there is a tradition, first appearing in the course of the second century, according to which Peter was its bishop. The assertion that he was Bishop of Rome we first find at a much later time. From the second half of the second century we do possess texts that mention the apostolic ''foundation'' of Rome, and at this time, which is indeed rather late, this foundation is traced back to Peter and Paul, an assertion that cannot be supported historically. Even here, however, nothing is said as yet of an episcopal office of Peter."</ref>''

I suppose many would feel it unfair to only say "claimed" for Rome and not others, when most of the the other sees have no real evidence either way. tahc ^chat 21:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Richard McBrien

An IP editor recently removed a section related to Richard McBrien without an explanation why. I'm opening this conversation in hopes to foster a discussion on this material. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 18:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

• http://books.google.com/books?id=Qz3TAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA12&dq=apostolic+succession+methodist&lr=&cd=16#v=onepage&q=apostolic%20succession%20methodist&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=sw9ILcqw2hsC&pg=PA71&dq=methodism+our+separated+brethren&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=NBAMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA170&dq=alexandria+wesley+ordination&lr=&cd=21#v=onepage&q=alexandria%20wesley%20ordination&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=mVVIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA145&dq=erasmus+arcadia+wesley+bishop&cd=5#v=onepage&q=erasmus%20arcadia%20wesley%20bishop&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=jxZBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA223&dq=apostolic+succession+methodist&cd=7#v=onepage&q=apostolic%20succession%20methodist&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=bW3sXBjnokkC&pg=PA91

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Apostolic succession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071126115409/http://www.orthodox.clara.net:80/orthodoxy_and_anglicanism.htm to http://www.orthodox.clara.net/orthodoxy_and_anglicanism.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090807095328/http://www.ucl.ac.uk:80/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm to http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.unitycatholic.org/page11.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101226171839/http://www.gbhem.org/atf/cf/%7B0BCEF929-BDBA-4AA0-968F-D1986A8EEF80%7D/DOM7DaysofPreparation.pdf to http://www.gbhem.org/atf/cf/%7B0BCEF929-BDBA-4AA0-968F-D1986A8EEF80%7D/DOM7DaysofPreparation.pdf

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Apostolic succession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405162625/http://sor.cua.edu/Intro/index.html to http://sor.cua.edu/Intro/index.html/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705194048/http://66.208.37.78/index.jsp?sid=1&id=2342&pid=5 to http://66.208.37.78/index.jsp?sid=1&id=2342&pid=5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151004010314/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1973_successione-apostolica_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1973_successione-apostolica_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120729121143/http://old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.shtml to http://old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.shtml#861

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Apostolic succession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305095653/http://www.porvoochurches.org/whatis/output03.php to http://www.porvoochurches.org/whatis/output03.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305094958/http://www.porvoochurches.org/whatis/resources-0201-english.php to http://www.porvoochurches.org/whatis/resources-0201-english.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1973_successione-apostolica_en.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=68&cuItem_itemID=8947
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061009081150/http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp to http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apostolic succession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723150729/http://www.churchofcyprus.org.cy/article.php?articleID=89 to http://www.churchofcyprus.org.cy/article.php?articleID=89
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=19&cuItem_itemID=4302

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Eric Jay and title "The Church"

Jay's The Church: its changing image through twenty centuries John Knox (1980) was first published by SPCK in two volumes (1977,1978) and there seems to be a numbering difference of a page or so between them. I have completed the title and adjusted the page numbering in some of the references given to the 1980 edition, but have not touched those dated 1977/8. -— Jpacobb (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)