I want to thank you Richard for teaching me more theology than any church I've ever been to. I'm more confident in my faith than ever and I have you to thank for that. Congratulations on your marriage brother!
If that were the case then, even heretics would have a right to declaring Apostolic Succession. This really goes directly within the line of private judgement concerning theological matters. Really, that is why the Catholic and Orthodox Churches cannot reconcile with the Protestant churches - what is novel must preserve the old. Yet Protestants go against the grain of fundamental understandings concerning these "teachings". Sola fide does not appear in the 1500 years leading up to Luther; the Eucharist is clearly defended by the early Church Fathers. The list could continue . . .
The reason why the Catholic Church asserts Anglican orders are not valid is not largely due to schism, but because of "defect of form and intention". They changed the rite. There was a Catholic priest who changed the baptismal formula by one word and that rendered their baptisms invalid and they had to be not re-baptized, but baptized for the first time as the first attempt did not count. Pope Leo XIII's Apostolic letter of 1896, Apostolicae Curae (on Anglican orders) declared Anglican orders absolutely null and utterly void because Thomas Cranmer had altered the ordination rite to exclude the concept of sacrifice as a chief purpose of a priest. Since a priest was no longer ordained to offer sacrifice, this fundamentally corrupted the very nature of Apostolic Succession for the Anglicans, effectively breaking it. Also, in the 39 Articles of the Church of England, they deny that Holy Orders is a Sacrament instituted by Christ. The Orthodox and The Catholic Church both agree on the fundamental task of a priest -- to offer sacrifice.
Apostolicae Curae works on false reasoning. Indeed, the line was removed in the ordinal - but the line was also not present in Roman rites dating all the way back to Hippolytus, but certainly their ordinations were valid. One could claim that those performing the ancient Roman rites without the line had the correct intent - that is, that these bishops believed the work of the priest is to offer up the Eucharist as a sacrifice - however, Anglicans have always considered the Eucharist to be the offering up of a sacrifice, meaning that Anglicans have always had correct intent. This is evident even from the 1552 BCP written under Edward that talks about the Eucharist as a sacrifice, and the countless Anglican divines who affirmed as such. In addition, Reginald Pole who was sent by the RCC to reunite the Church of England with the Roman Catholic Church after the death of King Edward, did not consider re-ordination necessary. For those interested, Saepius Officio is the official response by Canterbury to Apostolicae Curae that espouses these arguments. The 39 articles do not deny that Holy Orders are a sacrament outright, only that they are not sacraments of the Gospel, a position held only by Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Anglicans do understand Holy Orders as being instituted by Christ. And again, the early church was not unanimous in understanding Holy Orders as a sacrament, but this does not have any bearing on the validity of their Holy Orders.
Just 4 Edwardian bishops… Because a chalice wasn’t used and doubt over whether the word ‘receive’ or ‘come’ was used before ‘Holy Spirit’. The idea that such delicate uniformity existed across all of Europe before Trent is laughable. If those Edwardian bishops aren’t valid, neither are hundreds of Roman bishops either.
This is also inaccurate. There are a plethora of Anglican provinces and dioceses that retain the orthodox practice of ordaining only males to the priesthood. This much has been recognised by the Vatican through the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith.
Just a quick point about Anglican Orders. Anglican orders were declared invalid due to how the Edwardine ordination rite which Anglicans used did not affirm belief in the eucharist as a sacrifice or the sacrificing priesthood. Anglicans have changed the way they ordain since then and some have asked Old Catholic bishops to ordain their bishops. This resulted in Anglicans having or not having apostolic succession depending on the line of bishops that is followed (of course if there is a female bishop it's not valid regardless of the order)
That's 1 undecided topic down, 4 to go: -Head Coverings for Women -If Grape Juice is acceptable for the Eucharist/Communion or if it has to be Alcoholic Wine. -Public Schools vs. Private Schools vs. Home Schooling -Cessationism vs. Continuationism. All of these should get some kind of video. RZ probably has more to say about the latter two.
@@bonniegadsden9097 And the person laying on hands must himself have the authority to ordain, which he must have received from another man who had it, etc.
St. Bernard of Clairvaux did not hold to Protestant notions of Sola Fide. He held to a version of “faith alone” that is comparable with St. Thomas Aquinas.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyno, he is using the words in a different meaning than the Protestant Reformers do. If you read St. Bernard’s work “On Grace and Free Choice” you will see that he holds the Catholic position on sacraments conferring sanctifying grace.
@@nicanorfredricksbirdrealm228 As far as I know, my fellow Catholics would agree. You don't need to be ordained to be a missionary as far as I'm aware.
@@Rivian_Jedithat's what I'd believe even though I haven't looked up the Church teaching on that. My understanding is we are all called to be "missionaries"
That’s a total strawman of the Catholic position on Anglican Orders. We believe the so-called Old Catholics (even those in communion with the Anglicans) have valid bishops. The reason Anglican ordinations are invalid is because in the Edwardian Ordinal Rite, the Anglicans rejected the sacerdotal aspect of the priesthood - they denied that the office of priest and bishop was one ordered chiefly towards the offering of sacrifice. The Anglicans also had a deficiency in intention (a requirement for a valid sacrament) because they did not hold that belief in the Christ-ordained sacramental nature of ordination is necessary for ordination. The 39 Articles teaches a two-“Sacrament of the Gospel” model. The Eastern Orthodox, on the other hand, do not have these issues and so have valid ordinations.
Thanks. RZ just doesnt know that much about what Catholics believe. Youd think him making these kinds of mistakes would teach him to run his material by an informed catholic before posting this garbage. Saying the eastern orthodox and the methodists both have apostolic succession just because they broke from the same church is nuts!
In those same Anglican articles we recognize 5 Church Sacraments, those being the other five from Eucharist/Baptism. The specific descriptor for the two Gospel Sacraments is not unique to us, Pope Benedict XVI called these two the Dominical Sacraments
@@timboslice980 Yeah, I find it really frustrating that more recently he has been quick to talk about traditions he doesn't know much about. Just look at the bunch of videos where he took jabs at baptist, only to then apologise after he actually engaged with baptists. It wasn't wrong of him to apologise, but what I'm saying is that he could have easily avoided the whole situation if he approached the situation with more humility.
St. Irenaeus is quoted as having said, "“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (Against Heresies, 4:33:8)." Throughout the text St. Irenaeus firmly advocates that apostolic succession is crucial towards the preservation of the Church.
It's not that cut and dry. Many church fathers recognized that biblically speaking, Bishop and Presbyter were words that were used interchangeably. Polycarp recognized that Presbyter's and Deacons where interchangeable words in the N.T. and He was a first-generation Father. He said "Wherefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things, being subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ" (Polycarp to Philippians V). So did his student Irenaeus who said, "When we refer to them that tradition which originated from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of the presbyters in the churches, they object to tradition, saying they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even the Apostles”. - Irenaeus of Lyons “Against the Heresies”, 3.2.2, 180 AD. And Jerome believed the doctrine came about over time through need and said "“When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself. For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number, chosen by themselves, and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles." There are many more quotes, but my aim isn't to convince anyone one way or the other. But it is not nearly as cut and dry of a doctrine as the EOC and the RCC would have us to believe.
Yes, because he lived in the same century that the last Apostle died. Later the Arians would also claim apostolic succession and were dominant in many parts of the Christian world. What do you do then? You verify their competing claims of fidelity to apostolic teaching according to Scripture.
@@ronv7995 I believe that the presbytery structure is clearly implied by the pastoral epistles, most especially 1 Timothy and Titus; however, these texts need to be understood in light of the remainder of Scripture. For example, in Galatians, Paul says that " James, Cephas[a] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship . . . (Galatians 2:9 NIV)." Clearly, there is an episcopal element of the Church, as seen here. In fact, the pastoral letters can also be indirectly utilized to prove the episcopate position. That Paul had charge over Timothy and directed him in matters of the Church shows a clear hierarchy pertaining to the bishopric. Furthermore, the Council of Jerusalem clearly shows that there is a hierarchy of elders. Acts 15:1-2 says, "Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.' This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question(NIV)." Why was it necessary for them to go to the apostles? They authoritatively took stances and this is what the Church would then abide in( such as the appointing of the deacons). The Council of Jerusalem was led by the apostles, and then the apostles sent the degree out upon the universal Church.
@@clivejungle6999 Apostolic succession is directly correlated with the preservation of antiquity; that is, in order to have a proper claim to Apostolic Succession, one must also properly advocate for Apostolic Tradition and Scripturally Sound doctrine. This is why the Catholic Church refutes Apostolic Succession within Anglicanism - it is not Apostolic in its contents, though it has an official claim of an ordaining line down to the original apostles.
@@IvanGarcia-kh2lu What apostolic doctrine, teachings or traditions are not in Scripture? Do Roman priests get some secret knowledge whispered in their ears at ordination? Apostolic Succession now is just passing a baton from one guy to another. It is procedural not the type of apostolic succession that existed when the last Apostles died within living memory.
POPE CLEMENT I “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).
Which was great when you are in the 1st or 2nd centuries, but meaningless almost 1900 years later. Did Francis get his teachings from Benedict? No. So the ‘Apostolic succession’ is no different to the presidential succession or the succession of managers of KFC. An office and job title and nothing more…
@@clivejungle6999 SAINT IRENAEUS “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
@@clivejungle6999 SAINT IRENAEUS “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Thanks for sharing your perspective. The one downside of beginning to learn theology is it feels like everyone is always telling you you're going to hell for not being a part of their denomination/church. It can be very stressful especially when you're just an ordinary Christian trying to discern between highly philosophical or theologically technical ideas. But videos like this help bring some clarity amidst the storm.
@@kylie5741 You're probably being bombarded by denominations trying to advocate their position, but as a Catholic I wanted to clarify that the Church makes no claims on who is or is not in Hell. We believe that while the Catholic Church has all the necessary sacraments for salvation, others can also be saved by the Grace of God.
I know how you feel bro. All I gotta say is put all the attention on Christ. The Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches have no bearing on your eternal destination. Only Christ can save. God bless you.
"So, you're stating that you ain't prostitute, but the faithful wife of anonymous trinity of the Husband? I'm so sorry about that unfortunate misunderstanding, ma'am..." The God sees and remembers everything then there will be the Judgment. Here is Christ's question, Mathew 15: 3: "But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" Malachi 2: 1-4: "And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith Jehovah of hosts, then will I send the curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings; yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will rebuke your seed, and will spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your feasts; and ye shall be taken away with it. And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant may be with Levi, saith Jehovah of hosts." (ASV) A women say "the Husband has no name". Another ones say "the Husband has many names". Some of women "love the Husband in all his manifestations" like: neighbour, taxi driver, coworker, and so forth. Some women in a Husband-fearing way call him "H-D"... But, all of those prostitutes say "the Husband is the only". Their prostitution has created another women saying "there is no Husband at all". Then they even talk about "trinity of the Husband" and they are not against "the Son taking the Husband's place". In the same way religious prostitutes try to hide their disgusting fornication with different gods. Furthermore, a correct pronunciation of the Name is unknown now. This is the “loyalty” of traitors! Here is the God's word spoken through Moses, Deuteronomy 11: 16-17: "Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them; And then the LORD's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit; and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the LORD giveth you." So, the God says there are other gods, but blind leaders of blind lead people into trap. Names of an idols/false gods are well known: Zeus, Rempha/Chiun, Aurora, Baal, Moloch and many others. "Jesus" means "Jehovah is salvation". This is the name of Christ real christians are hated for. "HalleluJah" means "Praze Jah" (Jehovah). Psalm 83: 18: "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." (KJV) The problem is Devil runs the world. He is liar and murderer. This is the reason why liars feel so good while righteous people are persecuted. That's why we've got the Gospel about the God's kingdom. Jehovah would put everything in order. He has anointed the king, Jesus Christ. The dead will be resurected and we'll meet our beloved ones again! :-)
RZ if you are going to try to explain what Catholics believe when it comes to apostolic succession don't just strawman us and say we use that circular logic. This is the real reason we believe that Anglicans don't have apostolic succession and not just because they schismed. "Here’s a good explanation : One concept of Apostolic Succession, sometimes called "tactile succession", is that bishops derive their position by being consecrated by other bishops, who were themselves consecrated by earlier bishops, and so on right back to the apostles, and so to Christ Himself. A valid bishop is someone in this chain. A valid priest is someone appointed by a valid bishop. A priest, who is not a bishop, cannot pass on his priestly status to others, whereas a bishop can pass on priestly status to others, and can also pass on episcopal status to others. The weakest link in the Anglican chain of succession was seen as Matthew Parker appointed by Elizabeth I after the death of Queen Mary. Cranmer and other Protestant-minded bishops had been burned at the stake under Mary. The Catholic-minded bishops appointed by Mary resigned or were deprived and refused to consecrate Parker. Cardinal Pole, Archbishop of Canterbury between Cranmer and Parker, died the same day as Mary. By ancient tradition three bishops, at least, participate in the consecration of a new bishop. Parker's consecration was delayed for months, but eventually 4 bishops were found: Barlow, Coverdale, Scory and Hodgskin. Of these Barlow and Hodgskin had been consecrated in the Roman rite in the time of Henry VIII; and Coverdale and Scory had been consecrated by Cranmer in his own rite under Edward VI (son of Henry, brother of Mary and Elizabeth). All Anglican bishops were, and are, "descended" from Parker, and through him from Cranmer and from the Roman Catholic Church of which the Church of England was once part. Allegations that Parker had never been formally consecrated, but merely taken part in an unofficial ribald ceremony in a London pub, the Nag's Head , were made by Jesuits, though these are not accepted by historians, and have never been officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. There are also legal issues, but these have no bearing on validity. So, why does the Roman Catholic Church regard Anglican orders as invalid? In 1896 Pope Leo XIII issued a bull, Apostolicae Curae, in which he declared Anglican orders to be absolutely null and utterly void. There were several reasons. One concerned the form, the form of words in the consecration rite, in the Edwardine Ordinal used from 1551 until 1662 (except for Mary's five-year reign when the Roman rite was restored, and the Cromwellian Period when bishops were abolished). Following the words "Receive the Holy Ghost" the word "bishop" was not mentioned, nor anything definite to say what a bishop is. Although this was fixed, so to speak, in the 1662 Book, Leo said the defect of form meant there were no valid consecrations in England for over 100 years and so the hierarchy had died out. Even if the form was acceptable after 1662, there were no valid bishops to use it. The Anglican line had died out. Since the 1930s it has been standard practice for bishops from the Old Catholic churches to co-consecrate Church of England bishops. Old Catholic Churches split from Rome, mostly over Vatican One and Papal infallibility, and their bishops are accepted by Rome as valid. Most, perhaps all, Anglican bishops worldwide can now trace their "descent" from Old Catholic, as well as Anglican and Lutheran, bishops. Most Old Catholic Churches are members of the Utrecht Union, after the town of Utrecht in Holland. For this reason the participation of Old Catholic co-consecrators is known colloquially as the "Dutch Touch". However the Dutch Touch does not deal with Leo's principle objection to Anglican orders which is not about form, but intention. Anglican ordinations of priests, and consecration of bishops, are invalid because there is no intention, in the Anglican churches, that they should be valid. An ordination using an Anglican rite, in an Anglican church, must be assumed to have the public intention of accomplishing what the Anglican church says it is intended to accomplish, and that is fundamentally not to make priests or bishops in the Catholic sense of those terms. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York issued a response to the bull from Leo, and the Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales issued a Vindication of the bull, in the form of a reply to Canterbury and York. The Vindication is perhaps clearer than the bull. It describes Catholic doctrine. Priest and Sacrifice are correlative terms -with us at all events, and indeed with all nations, except in so far as your own Communion may be an exception. A priest is one who offers sacrifice; and as is the sacrifice, so is the priest. Since, then, our sacrifice is the Sacrifice of the Mass, our priest is one appointed and empowered to offer up that sacrifice; one, therefore, who has received from God the power, by means of the words of consecration, to cause the Body and Blood of Christ to become present under the appearance of bread and wine, and to offer them up sacrificially. Having explained the Catholic understanding of the word "priest", it goes on to document the Church of England position based on her Articles of Religion, her liturgy and the statements of her reformers and prominent theologians. The Church of England rejects the Roman Catholic understanding of the sacrifice of the mass as a blasphemous fable. The true Sacrifice and Priesthood ..... your Church has in the most stringent terms repudiated altogether. So , although Anglicans use the words "priest" and "bishop" they do not mean what Catholics mean, but something else. When Anglicans "ordain a priest" they have no intention of doing what Catholics do when they "ordain a priest". That, rather than tactile succession, is why the Roman Church deems Anglican orders invalid." - @HellenicPapist
As a Catholic, we do not recognize Apostolic Succession of the Anglican churches because their original requirements ( in the so called 'Edwardine Ordinals) were too calvinistic (i.e. spiritual, not the real presence) therefore Pope Leo XIII. decided in the Apostolic lettter 'Apostolicae curae' that Anglicans had broken the Succession.
Moreover their Church is led by a secular authority. The King of England. The only leader of the Church is the King of King's, Jesus Christ. His appointed viceroy on this earth is the Pope.
As a protestant I don't believe Peter was given any sort of papal authority by Jesus and Sola Scriptura is the only way. And I've got a 30 years war to prove it! Jk, you Catholics are alright for the most part, save for the guys who hate us Protestants. :)
@@Rivian_Jedi The Church of England is a state entity, but not all Anglicans are aligned with the Church of England. There are also Anglicans in the US.
Faith is received by the hearing of the Word and guiding of the Spirit. Do you think the Holy Spirit can't move in a person who isn't part of a particular tradition?
Was reading St Irenaeus' book on the Heresies where he speaks to the Apostolic Succession as means to preserve the Oral Tradition (access to the Written Word was difficult to come by in those days). He goes on to point out that Clement summarized the Oral Tradition in his Epistle to the Corinthians, which is ultimately the Biblical Narrative of Salvation in Christ. He furthermore points out that while the Church of Rome is the prime exemplar of preserving the Oral Tradition through Succession, the Church of Rome is far from the only church to do this. 🙃
Of course other churches around the Mediterranean also performed Apostolic Succession. Rome isn't special in that regard. It is special because that is the Throne of Saint Peter, the steward and viceroy of Christ on this earth.
@@Rivian_Jedi that's really cool! I'm certain the man sitting on that chair would never seek to defraud those who believe in the salvation of Christ Jesus. 🙃
@@deutschermichel5807 defraud /dĭ-frôd′/ transitive verb To take something from by fraud; swindle. "defrauded the immigrants by selling them worthless land deeds." To deprive of some right, interest, or property, by a deceitful device; to withhold from wrongfully; to injure by embezzlement; to cheat; to overreach; ; -- with of before the thing taken or withheld. "to defraud a servant, or a creditor, or the state" 👍
Hi Zoomer, I understand how Apostolic Succession would have been important in the early church when all the teachings and theology of the church wasn't written down. But what purpose does it serve today? We are so far removed from the early church fathers that I struggle to see how relevant it really is that somebody was taught by someone who was taught by someone who was taught by someone who was taught by someone who was taught by someone who was taught by someone what was taught by someone who was taught by one of the church fathers. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts!
At least for the Orthodox Church-true apostolic succession must have the ordination of clergy from valid bishops who themselves were validly ordained, but also holding and teaching the true Apostolic faith, which is why the EO do not recognize any one else’s claims to apostolic succession. It’s not just the unbroken line of bishops, it’s also the continuity of teaching the faith of the Apostles. So while yes, the Pope most certainly has an unbroken chain of ordained bishops that go from him all the way to one of the Apostles, in the EO view, he still does not have Apostolic succession because he does not hold to the original teachings of the Apostles
@@alexwr It is a source of ecclesiastical authority. An unbroken line back to Jesus with the imparting of special privileges, including the forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus.
@@Rivian_Jedi Except that sins can only be forgiven by God. The disciples cannot forgive sins by their own power, only through the Holy Spirit (John 20:21-23). So, with this in mind, there are only two logical options: 1. Every believer who receives the Holy Spirit can forgive sins. 2. Exclusively the people who were there for the events of John 20:21-23 have received the Holy Spirit and can forgive sins through Him. As you can see, neither option leaves any room for special privileges through Apostolic Succession. There is nowhere in the text that suggests anything of the sort. This is clearly a textbook example eisegesis, rather than exegesis. So, discounting the special privileges argument, because it is bunk, there is no particular reason to worry about strict Apostolic Succession, right?
@@jameschebahtah Technically any denomination that has any form of historic church governing body can claim Apostolic Succession, right? My question was: So what? Technically you're they're all an unbroken line from the disciples because they're all offshoots of the early church. What does that have to do with the price of fish? Surely correct theology matters wayy more than if we happen to have a historic link to the early church, right?
@@alexwr Or the third logical option, Jesus gave the authority to forgive or retain sins in His name to His Apostles (which He did). Then those Apostles passed on this authority to their successors rather than presuming that the authority simply disappears.
Yes it is real- in the sense that all believers can ultimately trace their faith back to the apostles..but not in a RCC sense of succession to a papacy
Hey RZ, catholic here! The episcopals don't have apostolic succesion, because, while they might now have a similar/same understanding of apostolic succesion and ordination but during the reformation thy were more reformed, which broke their chain
Apostolic succession is real and established by the writings of James and Paul who ordained their successors to continue the teachings of Christ. The roots of this authority are found in Christ granting His authority to His Apostles.
Neither James nor Paul were one of the 12 apostles. That appears to throw a wrench into your claim, doesn’t it? Do you believe there were more than 12 apostles?
@@SoliDeoGloriadeusvult Paul was personally made an Apostle to the Gentiles by Jesus and was recognized as such by the 12. Moreover, Matthias was not an original Apostle but was chosen to replace Judas among the 12 by a casting of lots after he had been chosen to be among the final two of 120 possible disciples.
the difference between anglicans and EO is that the anglicans removed the sacrificial nature of the priesthood, thus making the ordinations invalid thus no apostolic succession, the EO's ordinations are illicit (illegal) but not invalid (no more apostolic succession)
I like apostolic succession because denominations with bishopric lineages are better at avoiding heresies than your random cult or non-denominational who may have a strayed heretic following gnosticism, Arianism, Nestorianism, or other heresies, would be problematic. Knowledge of the legitimate successor from predecessor is truly better. The succession of bishops who inherit apostolic knowledge. They're walls that guard against the sin of wicked heresies.
Yes it's real, look up the Patriarchs of the East Orthodox Church. Patriarch of Jerusalem goes back to James, Patriarch of Alexandria has Mark as the first bishop, Patriarch of Constantinople has bishop Andrew, and Antioch to Peter who later founded the church in Rome.
Well, this is interesting timing. I was just talking with friends at small group about trying to determine the succession of a certain pastor. I'm a baptist working towards getting ordained, if God is willing, and I've been concerned about doing it the right way. Now, I'll be thinking on whether I need to find succession in the pastoral role, or in the teaching alone. You've given me something to think on, RZ. Thanks. (Also, nice to see another teetotaler who thinks alcohol is good. *Just because I don't drink doesn't mean you shouldn't. Just don't get drunk.* )
It's both succession of ordination and of teaching. If Arius had been a bishop and went on to "ordain" Arian "priests," they would not be Christian priests but something else.
The idea of apostolic succession is very reminiscent of when Jesus had his authority questioned while teaching in the temple (Matthew 21 and Mark 11). It can very easily become being given authority by man, when the authority should come from God alone. So, without apostolic succession how do we determine true churches? Test what is being preached, or what is being taught, or the core values of the congregation in question against scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17). If what they do is in line with scripture, then their faith is true as their works will show their faith (James 2:14-26). There are disagreements between the doctrines of denominations, but at its core, the way to determine a true church is not apostolic succession, rather it is the church's teachings and if they're in line with scripture.
"since however it would be very tedious in such a volume as this to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self pleasing, by vanity, or by blindness and perverse opinio, assemble in unauthorized meetings, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles peter and Paul; also the faith preached to men, WHICH COMES DOWN TO OUR TIME BY MEANS OF THE SUCCESSIONS OF THE BISHOPS. For it is a matter of necessity that every church agree with this church on account of it's preeminent authority..." St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:3:2
Here is my view on the apostolic succession: If the argument is that all it takes is to be appointed by someone that was appointed by someone etc etc that was originally appointed by the apostles, then all the original Protestant denominations are also apostolic churches because they were all originally RC clergy when they got started. However, if right teaching is the evidence of apostolic succession, then as soon as someone contradicts the Bible, the chain is broken. Or at least, it's broken when that person with flawed judgment appoints someone else.
Sorry by sibling in Christ, but that is simply not true. No Protestant denominations were started by a validly-ordained Catholic bishop. Martin Luther was only a friar. Not a single bishop supported his schism. Calvin wasnʼt a bishop either. Anglicanism was forcefully founded by the English Crown and the original Baptist denominations are completely lay lead and have no priests at all. In Germany, the Protestant Reformation started and was only “successful” because a handful of mighty lords and noble princes wanted to disown the Catholic monasteries and abbeys and steal all their art and gold for the state. They therefors accepted Lutherʼs teachings and forced every citizen to become Protestant. The Calvinist Margrave of Brandenburg went so far to appoint his own bishop, command him to marry a woman and watch them have sex to made sure he isnʼt celibate. But Luther was all okay with this because in lack of a bishop, he declared that the state is now the church. Luther basically gave the church governance to the state, because he didnʼt have any bishops. This state of affairs lasted until 1918, when the German monarchy was abolished and the Protestant kings and dukes lost their thrones aswell as their episcopacy. But because of the century-old tradition of state governed Protestant churches, it was easy for Hitler and the Nazis to bring through the Gleichschaltung of Protestantism and the Nazi Party and State by appointing the Reichsbishop. During all those 500 centuries, the Catholic Church remained independent from state control and upheld the apostolic succession that Jesus started. The Catholic Church to this day and until the Second Comming will be governed by bishops independent of monarchs, lords, national socialists and other Protestantsʼ suggar daddy
@@deutschermichel5807 Martin Luther is not the founder, he's a reformer, who wanted to put the Bible back as the Supreme Authority. He did not start a church, he restored it, by removing innovations which were not Biblical. Saying "he was not a bishop" is just pushing the goal post. Martin Luther was a member of the clergy, as were the priests that helped implement the reformation. If they were appointed in error then that just calls into question your appointment process. The RC Church clearly does not have an unbroken line of succession in the Papacy, as it has gotten out of step with the clear teachings of the Bible. Going at least as far back as far as the 11th century AD, when Pope Gregory banned the clergy from marriage. This was a fiat declaration which is not from God, and which is contradictory to the direct commands from God which are found in the Bible. Someone who goes against God, and speaks against his commands, does not speak for God. At least as far back as this point, the RC church has been off the rails, and the line of succession is broken (if it ever was real in the first place). Coming to the modern times, if Pope Francis says one thing, and Jesus says another, which do you go with?
@@Procopius464 Catholics don't view priests as having authority to ordain. So while Luther's individual ordination was valid, they would say he did not have the ability to perform ordination of other priests. That's the view that all the apostolic churches share, so you'll be fighting an uphill battle to try to convince them that priests have that authority.
I think he's saying that apostolic succession is a succession of doctrine instead of say Holy Orders. Although I'd personally argue that at least when Irenaeus referenced the doctrine, he spoke about doctrine coming from institutional apostolic succession rather than the apostolic succession being the succession of doctrine
Even if you view apostolic succession as based on teachings, you would still recognize that Protestant teachings differ from those of Orthodoxy and Catholicism, such as the concept of sola scriptura. I tend to align with the original Church’s view on apostolic succession, which both Orthodoxy and Catholicism support. While some Protestant churches, like the Anglicans, might have closer ties to apostolic succession, not all Protestants necessarily do. Regarding the validity of Jehovah's Witnesses, if all Protestants are considered valid, then Jehovah's Witnesses, who emerged from Adventism (which in turn split from Baptists), should also be considered valid. Since Jehovah's Witnesses were founded by an Adventist minister, their legitimacy could be supported by your theory of succession based on teachings. Edit: Also, Charle Taze Russel himself said he wasn't trying to make a new denomination. "Russell was a charismatic figure, but claimed no special revelation or vision for his teachings and no special authority on his own behalf. He stated that he did not seek to found a new denomination, but intended to gather together those who were seeking the truth of God's Word "during this harvest time".[20][21][22] He wrote that the "clear unfolding of truth" within his teachings was due to "the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out."[23]" - WIkipedia I've had Jehovah's Witnesses agree with the trinity depending how you define it, they often misunderstand the trinity and christian ideology in general.They don't agree the holy spirit comes form son tho. "Christendom’s churches say that he is. “In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power and eternity” is how the Trinity is defined. But the Bible does not say this." -JW However I've had some agree to the orthodox trinity. " God the Father - The origin and creator of all things. God the Son (Jesus Christ) - The incarnate God who provides salvation through His life and resurrection. God the Holy Spirit - The divine presence who empowers and guides believers. These three persons are distinct but share the same divine essence, meaning they are fully and equally God. The Orthodox Church emphasizes that the three persons are united in one divine nature, working in perfect unity and harmony."
We don't have an "arbitrary "view of apostolic succession as Catholics and that's an offensive missrepresentation. Anglicans don't have valid orders for several reasons, not just "because they schismed". It's because they 1.) Changed the words of consecration. You can't do that. It's a different rite and it isn't legitimate. Think about Mormonism; they aren't baptising trinitarian, hence there is no baptism. 2.) Have a different intent. Unlike the Orthodox etc, the Anglican view of Priesthood does not have the same role as a real Priest, meaning a sacrificial priesthood. It isn't possible to be ordained a Priest if you don't intend on being a Priest. That being said, some Anglicans might have valid orders if they were ordained by an Old Catholic Bishop since theyre in communion together and sometimes UtrechtSee and OC bishops do ordinations. Probably not due to point #2, but it's not been officialy ruled out. Did you even google why we believe what we believe?
Oh my Lord, a God sent! I was researching this topic and the resources on the protestant perspective on this are scarce. However I still do have persisting questions. For example, hebrews 6 say that the laying on of hands is fundamental. We observe that the act is always done by someone of greater authority. Additionally, Bishops were always ordained by Apostolic Authority, even through delegates like Timothy and Titus. Does this imply that when the apostles died, the greater authorities who performed the laying on of hands were bishops by apostolic authority and hence being called fundamental? Also, does Timothy and Titus having a similar role indicate that the development is biblical and divinely inspired as a restoration of how it was in the apostolic days? I would like Protestant perspectives, please.
Anglicanism is essentially the only protestant branch that preserves apostolic succession in the form that the early church had. It's even fairly clearly laid out in the canons of Nicea that the bishop has an essential role in church hierarchy. Outside of Anglicanism, protestantism primarily appeals to the fact that there is overlap between the terms of Bishop and Presbyter in the Bible and in the earliest fathers. So outside of Anglicanism, most protestant branches believe there is no difference between a bishop and presbyter, and that distinction came later as a development in church history. There is some nuance with how certain Lutherans describe the situation, but it's mostly similar to this.
In regards to "Apostolic Succession" we have the direct teachings of the Apostles and Jesus Christ himself in the New Testament, this idea we need to believe the "Church Fathers" because they claim to have special knowledge passed down to them is heresy. This is elevating the tradition of men over the Word of God (Mark 7) If Transubstantiation was the common practice in the early Church, why did none of the actual Apostles command it or teach it?
Hey Zoomer. You probably won’t read this, but if you somehow manage to, then I’d like to request something. I’ve been a recent convert to Presbyterianism because of your videos, and I just figured, could you maybe do an updated version of the “All Denominations Explained in 10 minutes” but with extra denominations, like Dutch Reformed, Quaker/Amish, Nazarene/Holiness, Moravians, Church of Christ and some others?
I can personally name 10+ MBB who lead 3rd and 4th generation churches with 100+ believers, they’ve never been baptized by an ordained anything. I guess when they baptize someone it “doesn’t count” Btw 0.1% of the average American church’s budget goes to UPG missions, but yeah let’s argue about apostolic succession
Basically every church views baptism as a sacrament that can be administered by any Christian as long as it's performed properly. Apostolic succession has more to do with the validity of ordination and ability to administer communion.
I’m very much inclined to agree with you you redeem zoomer in terms of apostolic succession, being more of the word of God passing on between believers if you look at the earliest form of the church they didn’t have the structure organization of the Catholic Church had the underground church like something in North Korea or China have the word of God praying in small groups away from central authority per se
So essentially you're saying succession matters for doctrine but not for ordination. In which case, can I ordain myself as a pastor independently? I don't think the Presbyterian church would recognize that as valid ordination. So there is some sense of succession that they view necessary. It's just not important to most on whether or not that succession can be traced back to the apostles.
The historic view of apostollic succession is not what you describe at 2:20, despite what ecclesialist want us to believe it. In the early church history, apostolic succession is not a chain of ordination by the laying of hand, but it is the line of succession of certain church's (like the roman church, or the alexandrian church) leadership. It is not a line of who ordained who, but who followed who after the death of the leaders. a bit like royal succession in our days. In Rome, the apostolic succession is Peter -> Linus -> Anaclet -> Clement -> Evaristus. Each one becoming bishop after the death of the previous one, not the imposition of hands. This succession is attestable. But the succession of laying of hands is unproven.
@@Rivian_Jedi You are right. But I am not saying that the laying of hand did not happen in the Roman line. I am just saying that what the early church meant by "apostollic succession" was not the chain of ordinations but was the succession of office. Clement for example, according to eusebius, was ordinated by Peter. Yet still according to Eusebius, the apostollic succession of the church of Rome is Peter -> LINUS -> Clement. and not Peter -> Clement. Therefore, when the early church speak of apostolic succesion they didn't intend a chain of ordination, but a succession of office, when one take the office of the previous leader at his death.
@@IamGrimalkin Yes I also believe the true apostolic succession is the apostolic succession of teaching. But I am saying that the vision of apostollic succession being a chain of people laying hands on other is not even the view of the early church.
>I don't think the Puritans were opposed to alcohol Fun fact, the reason they chose Massachusetts as their location instead of Virginia was because they ran out of beer on the Mayflower. I'm not joking.
Just curious, are there any Church fathers who support the idea that to have a valid church you don't need a line of bishops? I used to think Jerome thought so, but even he says only bishops can ordain.
I think the succession of doctrine vs. succession of office/officer dichotomy is a false one. (I'm speaking as a Lutheran, btw) -- and ecumenical theology has tended to strike a balance. It's certainly the case that the earliest fathers seemed to emphasize succession of teaching vis-à-vis the gnostic heretics -- RATHER than a mechanistic, tactile succession of "getting zapped by the right zapper." Nevertheless, the "apostolic deposit" as a set of teachings (that needs guarding) is an abstraction apart from an authoritative "apostolic office" that is given to teach/guard it on behalf of the church (same principle applies for sacraments). Teaching and teaching AUTHORITY are both necessary (as well as taught community) -- none of these can be pitted against each other, and that is what a healthy theology of 'apostolic succession' was originally intended to safeguard.
Very good video. I would still say you need to have the laying on of hands going back to the apostles for valid sacraments, but a succession of teaching is also a part of it. case in point with the CofE, they have Apostolic succession, but not in terms of doctrine, or at least, not anymore. They go hand in hand, so to speak
Here’s a biblical standard for apostolic succession: if you claim you have it but either your church teachings don’t date back to the Apostolic Era, you don’t call Mary blessed or something about your church contradicts the Apostles Creed, then you don’t have apostolic succession.
@@JP-rf8rryes, Rome did recognize the original Anglican ordinations. It wasn’t until the Anglicans changed the form and intention of their ordination rite that their orders were invalid.
Would it be valid for lay people to administer sacraments if they are unable to attend a church? (Shipwrecked, in a country where the church is seriously persecuted, etc.) I realize it’s the exception rather than the rule but interested to hear your thoughts
@@keithwysocki9003 That's a tough question and from what I understand the Catholic position is that it depends on the Sacrament (I could be wrong on this). In an extreme circumstance even a layperson can baptize and an extraordinary minister can perform sacraments like Communion I believe. However, even if you were unable to take Communion in such a dire circumstance I don't think God would hold you to your Sunday Mass obligation. 😂
My non denom friend and i have been arguing about this all week. All cause some cowboy youtuber said catholics are going to hell if they believe Matthias wasnt a mistake. In the guy’s vid he said “jesus told them to wait, not to go hiring new apostles! Well after that Peter said “oops, now what?!” I said no Paul and Barnabas are named apostles. My friend said “barnabas was no apostle, neither was matthias, jesus chose paul. Men chose Matthias and Barnabas! I just dont know what to say other than if you have to add to the bible to make your case against catholicism, you arent going to convince anyone but ignorant people that already want to agree with you. Some protestants are witch hunting and not really following sola scriptura.
@@jvoges +100 for dedication. But the keyword is"can". If the church was like in the first days of the church, ( every day, they would come together right?) it would result in the following out of "fake" Christians and prosperity preachers.
@@einzelwolf3437 You mean the Church which preserved the book of Acts in the time of the persecution? Yes, it is in all core beliefs the Church holds to till the 14th century, and till today. The direct successors, a.k.a. the best friends and most trusted people of the apostles, clearly state from the early second century that the Eucharist during the liturgy isnt bread and wine anymore, but the Body and Blood of Christ. Check out the Didache, Polycarp and Irenaeus on this matter. If transsubstantiation is evidently true, based on the immeditate successors of the apostles and all to come after them, then all reformed traditions are automatically false.
Apolostic succession is important as a popular atheist line is that the gospels were not written by the stated authors but instead written years later by unknown authors as a kind of legend. This isn't true at all the gospels were written by the authors and the early church fathers knew the authors were and so did their successors etc so it's important to say that it is very real. Is it important in an rc or orthodox way. No as ultimately christ is the head and only head of the church and any other leader of church will always be fallible in some way because it is not christ
@@pgpython Yes, the Pope is fallible. Catholics agree. There have been bad men who have become Pope. We mainly believe that the Pope is only infallible when speaking infallibly and is in that moment guided by the Holy Spirit. It is VERY rare.
Christ gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins, cast out demons, heal the sick, etc.. Are you saying that these authorities died with the Apostles?
You would really hate how underground churches in closed countries operate… oh you were introduced to Jesus from a support-raised parachurch missionary? Sorry you don’t have a real church
Lol. There is practically zero overlap of Mormanism and Islam. Radically different theology. You legitimately don't know anything about Islam. If you're going to speak on something you don't agree on, you should understand what it is
According to this view of Apostolic succession, the ancient alleged "heretical gnostics" could very well have had a legitimate "true church", as you say, as their teachings of the Bible and sacraments, though going against the authority of the alleged fathers, may have been legitimate. The viciousness in which St. Iraneaus wrote "Against Heresies" says much of his honesty about a tradition that he clearly did not understand, and assuredly made countless errors against in his dissertation on Valentinian gnosticsm.
@RedeemedZoomer, I think you are totally underestimating the power of the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture to the believer. The priesthood of all believers is not just scriptural theoretically, it is very real. That is one reason that non-denominational churches spring up. John 17 explains it, and its purpose is to demonstrare the love of God to the world: people who have not yet heard of, or believed in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.
![[FULL EP.16] เซียนพาลุย "เผือก-ฟรอยด์" กรี๊ดลั่น จนปูหนี | เฮ็ดอย่างเซียนหรั่ง | One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FsqUvwS3b-Y/mqdefault.jpg)
"Welcome to KingdomCraft, where we build churches in Minecraft!"
*Proceeds to build a bar
Mediaeval monk moment
If you know anything about Presbyterians, the communion wine has spiritual presence but the wine at home is VERY present
I want to thank you Richard for teaching me more theology than any church I've ever been to. I'm more confident in my faith than ever and I have you to thank for that. Congratulations on your marriage brother!
I second this.
What kind of churches you going to where a random zoomer on TH-cam is teaching you more theology?
@@Niko-zg6uq Evangelical ones. It's sad but true.
Yeah so true
Well, maybe the true apostolic succesion are the teachings we made along the way
😂
If that were the case then, even heretics would have a right to declaring Apostolic Succession. This really goes directly within the line of private judgement concerning theological matters. Really, that is why the Catholic and Orthodox Churches cannot reconcile with the Protestant churches - what is novel must preserve the old. Yet Protestants go against the grain of fundamental understandings concerning these "teachings". Sola fide does not appear in the 1500 years leading up to Luther; the Eucharist is clearly defended by the early Church Fathers. The list could continue . . .
rumor has it if you’re early enough RZ will like your comment
True!
@@redeemedzoomer6053 How to join minecraft server
@@redeemedzoomer6053You are now predestined to pin that guy.
Fancy way of saying first
@@redeemedzoomer6053 then now you must like mine 😊
The reason why the Catholic Church asserts Anglican orders are not valid is not largely due to schism, but because of "defect of form and intention". They changed the rite. There was a Catholic priest who changed the baptismal formula by one word and that rendered their baptisms invalid and they had to be not re-baptized, but baptized for the first time as the first attempt did not count.
Pope Leo XIII's Apostolic letter of 1896, Apostolicae Curae (on Anglican orders) declared Anglican orders absolutely null and utterly void because Thomas Cranmer had altered the ordination rite to exclude the concept of sacrifice as a chief purpose of a priest. Since a priest was no longer ordained to offer sacrifice, this fundamentally corrupted the very nature of Apostolic Succession for the Anglicans, effectively breaking it. Also, in the 39 Articles of the Church of England, they deny that Holy Orders is a Sacrament instituted by Christ.
The Orthodox and The Catholic Church both agree on the fundamental task of a priest -- to offer sacrifice.
Apostolicae Curae works on false reasoning. Indeed, the line was removed in the ordinal - but the line was also not present in Roman rites dating all the way back to Hippolytus, but certainly their ordinations were valid. One could claim that those performing the ancient Roman rites without the line had the correct intent - that is, that these bishops believed the work of the priest is to offer up the Eucharist as a sacrifice - however, Anglicans have always considered the Eucharist to be the offering up of a sacrifice, meaning that Anglicans have always had correct intent. This is evident even from the 1552 BCP written under Edward that talks about the Eucharist as a sacrifice, and the countless Anglican divines who affirmed as such. In addition, Reginald Pole who was sent by the RCC to reunite the Church of England with the Roman Catholic Church after the death of King Edward, did not consider re-ordination necessary. For those interested, Saepius Officio is the official response by Canterbury to Apostolicae Curae that espouses these arguments.
The 39 articles do not deny that Holy Orders are a sacrament outright, only that they are not sacraments of the Gospel, a position held only by Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Anglicans do understand Holy Orders as being instituted by Christ. And again, the early church was not unanimous in understanding Holy Orders as a sacrament, but this does not have any bearing on the validity of their Holy Orders.
*yes*
Just 4 Edwardian bishops…
Because a chalice wasn’t used and doubt over whether the word ‘receive’ or ‘come’ was used before ‘Holy Spirit’.
The idea that such delicate uniformity existed across all of Europe before Trent is laughable.
If those Edwardian bishops aren’t valid, neither are hundreds of Roman bishops either.
@@boredgirl7418 Well now they ordain women so it doesn't matter anyway.
This is also inaccurate. There are a plethora of Anglican provinces and dioceses that retain the orthodox practice of ordaining only males to the priesthood. This much has been recognised by the Vatican through the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith.
Just a quick point about Anglican Orders.
Anglican orders were declared invalid due to how the Edwardine ordination rite which Anglicans used did not affirm belief in the eucharist as a sacrifice or the sacrificing priesthood.
Anglicans have changed the way they ordain since then and some have asked Old Catholic bishops to ordain their bishops.
This resulted in Anglicans having or not having apostolic succession depending on the line of bishops that is followed (of course if there is a female bishop it's not valid regardless of the order)
RZ: *builds a bar in the same video in which he denounces Islam*
he literally said theres no alcohol
@@anurag8727 I think the mental image still holds
That's 1 undecided topic down, 4 to go:
-Head Coverings for Women
-If Grape Juice is acceptable for the Eucharist/Communion or if it has to be Alcoholic Wine.
-Public Schools vs. Private Schools vs. Home Schooling
-Cessationism vs. Continuationism.
All of these should get some kind of video. RZ probably has more to say about the latter two.
Agreed
So good news there is videos for a couple of those
I’d love him to add if the bread has to be unleavened
The Orthodox position is we must have both the “mechanical” laying on of the hands, AND the unchanged apostolic faith
@@bonniegadsden9097 And the person laying on hands must himself have the authority to ordain, which he must have received from another man who had it, etc.
St. Bernard of Clairvaux did not hold to Protestant notions of Sola Fide. He held to a version of “faith alone” that is comparable with St. Thomas Aquinas.
Sola fide (salvation by faith alone) =/= salvation by faith alone?
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyno, he is using the words in a different meaning than the Protestant Reformers do. If you read St. Bernard’s work “On Grace and Free Choice” you will see that he holds the Catholic position on sacraments conferring sanctifying grace.
That's what Lutherans think too, sacraments are the means of grace and SAVE even though we are saved by faith alone@@carsonianthegreat4672
@@carsonianthegreat4672Can you explain what he meant by faith alone?
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty It depends on what one means by "faith." Mere intellectual assent is not salvific. Acting on that intellectual assent is.
I believe you don’t need apostolic succession to be a preacher but you need it to be a priest.
Yeah true. But I think in some denominations the diocese must first approve you as a preacher before beginning a lay ministry.
@@nicanorfredricksbirdrealm228 As far as I know, my fellow Catholics would agree. You don't need to be ordained to be a missionary as far as I'm aware.
@@Rivian_Jedithat's what I'd believe even though I haven't looked up the Church teaching on that. My understanding is we are all called to be "missionaries"
Amen. Preach the gospel to the ends of the earth as our Lord commands. 🗣️✝️👑
That's kinda point
That’s a total strawman of the Catholic position on Anglican Orders.
We believe the so-called Old Catholics (even those in communion with the Anglicans) have valid bishops. The reason Anglican ordinations are invalid is because in the Edwardian Ordinal Rite, the Anglicans rejected the sacerdotal aspect of the priesthood - they denied that the office of priest and bishop was one ordered chiefly towards the offering of sacrifice. The Anglicans also had a deficiency in intention (a requirement for a valid sacrament) because they did not hold that belief in the Christ-ordained sacramental nature of ordination is necessary for ordination. The 39 Articles teaches a two-“Sacrament of the Gospel” model.
The Eastern Orthodox, on the other hand, do not have these issues and so have valid ordinations.
Thanks. RZ just doesnt know that much about what Catholics believe. Youd think him making these kinds of mistakes would teach him to run his material by an informed catholic before posting this garbage. Saying the eastern orthodox and the methodists both have apostolic succession just because they broke from the same church is nuts!
He's very open about not having the most advanced views he's very open about the fact he generalizes. But it's good to correct
Ah yes the classic case of Catholics hating on Anglicans how original 🙄
In those same Anglican articles we recognize 5 Church Sacraments, those being the other five from Eucharist/Baptism. The specific descriptor for the two Gospel Sacraments is not unique to us, Pope Benedict XVI called these two the Dominical Sacraments
@@timboslice980 Yeah, I find it really frustrating that more recently he has been quick to talk about traditions he doesn't know much about. Just look at the bunch of videos where he took jabs at baptist, only to then apologise after he actually engaged with baptists. It wasn't wrong of him to apologise, but what I'm saying is that he could have easily avoided the whole situation if he approached the situation with more humility.
St. Irenaeus is quoted as having said, "“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (Against Heresies, 4:33:8)." Throughout the text St. Irenaeus firmly advocates that apostolic succession is crucial towards the preservation of the Church.
It's not that cut and dry. Many church fathers recognized that biblically speaking, Bishop and Presbyter were words that were used interchangeably. Polycarp recognized that Presbyter's and Deacons where interchangeable words in the N.T. and He was a first-generation Father. He said "Wherefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things, being subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ" (Polycarp to Philippians V). So did his student Irenaeus who said, "When we refer to them that tradition which originated from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of the presbyters in the churches, they object to tradition, saying they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even the Apostles”. - Irenaeus of Lyons “Against the Heresies”, 3.2.2, 180 AD. And Jerome believed the doctrine came about over time through need and said "“When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself. For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number, chosen by themselves, and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles." There are many more quotes, but my aim isn't to convince anyone one way or the other. But it is not nearly as cut and dry of a doctrine as the EOC and the RCC would have us to believe.
Yes, because he lived in the same century that the last Apostle died.
Later the Arians would also claim apostolic succession and were dominant in many parts of the Christian world.
What do you do then? You verify their competing claims of fidelity to apostolic teaching according to Scripture.
@@ronv7995 I believe that the presbytery structure is clearly implied by the pastoral epistles, most especially 1 Timothy and Titus; however, these texts need to be understood in light of the remainder of Scripture. For example, in Galatians, Paul says that " James, Cephas[a] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship . . . (Galatians 2:9 NIV)." Clearly, there is an episcopal element of the Church, as seen here. In fact, the pastoral letters can also be indirectly utilized to prove the episcopate position. That Paul had charge over Timothy and directed him in matters of the Church shows a clear hierarchy pertaining to the bishopric. Furthermore, the Council of Jerusalem clearly shows that there is a hierarchy of elders. Acts 15:1-2 says, "Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.' This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question(NIV)." Why was it necessary for them to go to the apostles? They authoritatively took stances and this is what the Church would then abide in( such as the appointing of the deacons). The Council of Jerusalem was led by the apostles, and then the apostles sent the degree out upon the universal Church.
@@clivejungle6999 Apostolic succession is directly correlated with the preservation of antiquity; that is, in order to have a proper claim to Apostolic Succession, one must also properly advocate for Apostolic Tradition and Scripturally Sound doctrine. This is why the Catholic Church refutes Apostolic Succession within Anglicanism - it is not Apostolic in its contents, though it has an official claim of an ordaining line down to the original apostles.
@@IvanGarcia-kh2lu What apostolic doctrine, teachings or traditions are not in Scripture? Do Roman priests get some secret knowledge whispered in their ears at ordination?
Apostolic Succession now is just passing a baton from one guy to another. It is procedural not the type of apostolic succession that existed when the last Apostles died within living memory.
Hi RZ! Congrats on your marriage! Hopefully your honeymoon and all of that will turn out well. Peace and love.
POPE CLEMENT I
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).
Which was great when you are in the 1st or 2nd centuries, but meaningless almost 1900 years later. Did Francis get his teachings from Benedict? No. So the ‘Apostolic succession’ is no different to the presidential succession or the succession of managers of KFC.
An office and job title and nothing more…
@@clivejungle6999 SAINT IRENAEUS
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
@@clivejungle6999
SAINT IRENAEUS
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Thanks for sharing your perspective. The one downside of beginning to learn theology is it feels like everyone is always telling you you're going to hell for not being a part of their denomination/church. It can be very stressful especially when you're just an ordinary Christian trying to discern between highly philosophical or theologically technical ideas. But videos like this help bring some clarity amidst the storm.
@@kylie5741 You're probably being bombarded by denominations trying to advocate their position, but as a Catholic I wanted to clarify that the Church makes no claims on who is or is not in Hell. We believe that while the Catholic Church has all the necessary sacraments for salvation, others can also be saved by the Grace of God.
I know how you feel bro. All I gotta say is put all the attention on Christ. The Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches have no bearing on your eternal destination. Only Christ can save. God bless you.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty thank you
"So, you're stating that you ain't prostitute, but the faithful wife of anonymous trinity of the Husband? I'm so sorry about that unfortunate misunderstanding, ma'am..."
The God sees and remembers everything then there will be the Judgment.
Here is Christ's question,
Mathew 15: 3: "But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?"
Malachi 2: 1-4: "And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith Jehovah of hosts, then will I send the curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings; yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will rebuke your seed, and will spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your feasts; and ye shall be taken away with it. And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant may be with Levi, saith Jehovah of hosts." (ASV)
A women say "the Husband has no name". Another ones say "the Husband has many names". Some of women "love the Husband in all his manifestations" like: neighbour, taxi driver, coworker, and so forth. Some women in a Husband-fearing way call him "H-D"...
But, all of those prostitutes say "the Husband is the only". Their prostitution has created another women saying "there is no Husband at all".
Then they even talk about "trinity of the Husband" and they are not against "the Son taking the Husband's place".
In the same way religious prostitutes try to hide their disgusting fornication with different gods.
Furthermore, a correct pronunciation of the Name is unknown now. This is the “loyalty” of traitors!
Here is the God's word spoken through Moses,
Deuteronomy 11: 16-17: "Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them; And then the LORD's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit; and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the LORD giveth you."
So, the God says there are other gods, but blind leaders of blind lead people into trap.
Names of an idols/false gods are well known: Zeus, Rempha/Chiun, Aurora, Baal, Moloch and many others.
"Jesus" means "Jehovah is salvation". This is the name of Christ real christians are hated for.
"HalleluJah" means "Praze Jah" (Jehovah).
Psalm 83: 18: "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." (KJV)
The problem is Devil runs the world. He is liar and murderer. This is the reason why liars feel so good while righteous people are persecuted.
That's why we've got the Gospel about the God's kingdom. Jehovah would put everything in order. He has anointed the king, Jesus Christ. The dead will be resurected and we'll meet our beloved ones again! :-)
Dude I’m genuinely so happy for your marriage. God bless you!
RZ if you are going to try to explain what Catholics believe when it comes to apostolic succession don't just strawman us and say we use that circular logic. This is the real reason we believe that Anglicans don't have apostolic succession and not just because they schismed.
"Here’s a good explanation :
One concept of Apostolic Succession, sometimes called "tactile succession", is that bishops derive their position by being consecrated by other bishops, who were themselves consecrated by earlier bishops, and so on right back to the apostles, and so to Christ Himself. A valid bishop is someone in this chain. A valid priest is someone appointed by a valid bishop. A priest, who is not a bishop, cannot pass on his priestly status to others, whereas a bishop can pass on priestly status to others, and can also pass on episcopal status to others.
The weakest link in the Anglican chain of succession was seen as Matthew Parker appointed by Elizabeth I after the death of Queen Mary. Cranmer and other Protestant-minded bishops had been burned at the stake under Mary. The Catholic-minded bishops appointed by Mary resigned or were deprived and refused to consecrate Parker. Cardinal Pole, Archbishop of Canterbury between Cranmer and Parker, died the same day as Mary. By ancient tradition three bishops, at least, participate in the consecration of a new bishop.
Parker's consecration was delayed for months, but eventually 4 bishops were found: Barlow, Coverdale, Scory and Hodgskin. Of these Barlow and Hodgskin had been consecrated in the Roman rite in the time of Henry VIII; and Coverdale and Scory had been consecrated by Cranmer in his own rite under Edward VI (son of Henry, brother of Mary and Elizabeth). All Anglican bishops were, and are, "descended" from Parker, and through him from Cranmer and from the Roman Catholic Church of which the Church of England was once part.
Allegations that Parker had never been formally consecrated, but merely taken part in an unofficial ribald ceremony in a London pub, the Nag's Head , were made by Jesuits, though these are not accepted by historians, and have never been officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. There are also legal issues, but these have no bearing on validity.
So, why does the Roman Catholic Church regard Anglican orders as invalid?
In 1896 Pope Leo XIII issued a bull, Apostolicae Curae, in which he declared Anglican orders to be absolutely null and utterly void.
There were several reasons. One concerned the form, the form of words in the consecration rite, in the Edwardine Ordinal used from 1551 until 1662 (except for Mary's five-year reign when the Roman rite was restored, and the Cromwellian Period when bishops were abolished). Following the words "Receive the Holy Ghost" the word "bishop" was not mentioned, nor anything definite to say what a bishop is. Although this was fixed, so to speak, in the 1662 Book, Leo said the defect of form meant there were no valid consecrations in England for over 100 years and so the hierarchy had died out. Even if the form was acceptable after 1662, there were no valid bishops to use it. The Anglican line had died out.
Since the 1930s it has been standard practice for bishops from the Old Catholic churches to co-consecrate Church of England bishops. Old Catholic Churches split from Rome, mostly over Vatican One and Papal infallibility, and their bishops are accepted by Rome as valid. Most, perhaps all, Anglican bishops worldwide can now trace their "descent" from Old Catholic, as well as Anglican and Lutheran, bishops. Most Old Catholic Churches are members of the Utrecht Union, after the town of Utrecht in Holland. For this reason the participation of Old Catholic co-consecrators is known colloquially as the "Dutch Touch".
However the Dutch Touch does not deal with Leo's principle objection to Anglican orders which is not about form, but intention. Anglican ordinations of priests, and consecration of bishops, are invalid because there is no intention, in the Anglican churches, that they should be valid. An ordination using an Anglican rite, in an Anglican church, must be assumed to have the public intention of accomplishing what the Anglican church says it is intended to accomplish, and that is fundamentally not to make priests or bishops in the Catholic sense of those terms.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York issued a response to the bull from Leo, and the Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales issued a Vindication of the bull, in the form of a reply to Canterbury and York. The Vindication is perhaps clearer than the bull. It describes Catholic doctrine.
Priest and Sacrifice are correlative terms -with us at all events, and indeed with all nations, except in so far as your own Communion may be an exception. A priest is one who offers sacrifice; and as is the sacrifice, so is the priest. Since, then, our sacrifice is the Sacrifice of the Mass, our priest is one appointed and empowered to offer up that sacrifice; one, therefore, who has received from God the power, by means of the words of consecration, to cause the Body and Blood of Christ to become present under the appearance of bread and wine, and to offer them up sacrificially.
Having explained the Catholic understanding of the word "priest", it goes on to document the Church of England position based on her Articles of Religion, her liturgy and the statements of her reformers and prominent theologians. The Church of England rejects the Roman Catholic understanding of the sacrifice of the mass as a blasphemous fable.
The true Sacrifice and Priesthood ..... your Church has in the most stringent terms repudiated altogether.
So , although Anglicans use the words "priest" and "bishop" they do not mean what Catholics mean, but something else. When Anglicans "ordain a priest" they have no intention of doing what Catholics do when they "ordain a priest". That, rather than tactile succession, is why the Roman Church deems Anglican orders invalid." - @HellenicPapist
Romans strawman Anglicans as apostolicae curae proves. But when it happens the other way round, you plead for nuance…
As a Catholic, we do not recognize Apostolic Succession of the Anglican churches because their original requirements ( in the so called 'Edwardine Ordinals) were too calvinistic (i.e. spiritual, not the real presence) therefore Pope Leo XIII. decided in the Apostolic lettter 'Apostolicae curae' that Anglicans had broken the Succession.
Moreover their Church is led by a secular authority. The King of England. The only leader of the Church is the King of King's, Jesus Christ. His appointed viceroy on this earth is the Pope.
@@Rivian_JediAre you sure anglicans hold that the king is the head of the church instead of Jesus and not that he's Jesus' viceroy or something?
@@mojus2890 I've seen no evidence of the latter. Especially given that the King of England has the title of King.
As a protestant I don't believe Peter was given any sort of papal authority by Jesus and Sola Scriptura is the only way. And I've got a 30 years war to prove it!
Jk, you Catholics are alright for the most part, save for the guys who hate us Protestants. :)
@@Rivian_Jedi The Church of England is a state entity, but not all Anglicans are aligned with the Church of England. There are also Anglicans in the US.
Congrats on getting married
Pastor billy bob’s non-demom bible church doesn’t need “apostolic succecion”
That’s right. His Pappy Sylvester dug up the KJV Bible in 1913 and restored true Christianity.
Faith is received by the hearing of the Word and guiding of the Spirit. Do you think the Holy Spirit can't move in a person who isn't part of a particular tradition?
Time to read Luke 9 my apostolic brethren.
Was reading St Irenaeus' book on the Heresies where he speaks to the Apostolic Succession as means to preserve the Oral Tradition (access to the Written Word was difficult to come by in those days). He goes on to point out that Clement summarized the Oral Tradition in his Epistle to the Corinthians, which is ultimately the Biblical Narrative of Salvation in Christ.
He furthermore points out that while the Church of Rome is the prime exemplar of preserving the Oral Tradition through Succession, the Church of Rome is far from the only church to do this. 🙃
Of course other churches around the Mediterranean also performed Apostolic Succession. Rome isn't special in that regard. It is special because that is the Throne of Saint Peter, the steward and viceroy of Christ on this earth.
@@Rivian_Jedi that's really cool! I'm certain the man sitting on that chair would never seek to defraud those who believe in the salvation of Christ Jesus. 🙃
@@jonathanspeicher5298what do you even try to say? Defraud? What is this word
@@deutschermichel5807
defraud
/dĭ-frôd′/
transitive verb
To take something from by fraud; swindle.
"defrauded the immigrants by selling them worthless land deeds."
To deprive of some right, interest, or property, by a deceitful device; to withhold from wrongfully; to injure by embezzlement; to cheat; to overreach; ; -- with of before the thing taken or withheld.
"to defraud a servant, or a creditor, or the state"
👍
@@jonathanspeicher5298 You can believe in Christ, but if you deny His Church, you are also denying Him.
Zoomer is attacking Billy Bob's bible church again. This beef is crazy.
When u coming back to the livestream
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty idk
@@JoWilliams-ud4eu come back bro we miss ya 👍
Hi Zoomer,
I understand how Apostolic Succession would have been important in the early church when all the teachings and theology of the church wasn't written down. But what purpose does it serve today?
We are so far removed from the early church fathers that I struggle to see how relevant it really is that somebody was taught by someone who was taught by someone who was taught by someone who was taught by someone who was taught by someone who was taught by someone what was taught by someone who was taught by one of the church fathers.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts!
At least for the Orthodox Church-true apostolic succession must have the ordination of clergy from valid bishops who themselves were validly ordained, but also holding and teaching the true Apostolic faith, which is why the EO do not recognize any one else’s claims to apostolic succession. It’s not just the unbroken line of bishops, it’s also the continuity of teaching the faith of the Apostles. So while yes, the Pope most certainly has an unbroken chain of ordained bishops that go from him all the way to one of the Apostles, in the EO view, he still does not have Apostolic succession because he does not hold to the original teachings of the Apostles
@@alexwr It is a source of ecclesiastical authority. An unbroken line back to Jesus with the imparting of special privileges, including the forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus.
@@Rivian_Jedi Except that sins can only be forgiven by God. The disciples cannot forgive sins by their own power, only through the Holy Spirit (John 20:21-23).
So, with this in mind, there are only two logical options:
1. Every believer who receives the Holy Spirit can forgive sins.
2. Exclusively the people who were there for the events of John 20:21-23 have received the Holy Spirit and can forgive sins through Him.
As you can see, neither option leaves any room for special privileges through Apostolic Succession. There is nowhere in the text that suggests anything of the sort. This is clearly a textbook example eisegesis, rather than exegesis.
So, discounting the special privileges argument, because it is bunk, there is no particular reason to worry about strict Apostolic Succession, right?
@@jameschebahtah Technically any denomination that has any form of historic church governing body can claim Apostolic Succession, right?
My question was: So what? Technically you're they're all an unbroken line from the disciples because they're all offshoots of the early church. What does that have to do with the price of fish? Surely correct theology matters wayy more than if we happen to have a historic link to the early church, right?
@@alexwr Or the third logical option, Jesus gave the authority to forgive or retain sins in His name to His Apostles (which He did). Then those Apostles passed on this authority to their successors rather than presuming that the authority simply disappears.
Congratulations for your marriage. May God bless you.
Yes it is real- in the sense that all believers can ultimately trace their faith back to the apostles..but not in a RCC sense of succession to a papacy
Finally caught up! I've been binging this series for ages now and I finally made it!
Hey RZ, catholic here! The episcopals don't have apostolic succesion, because, while they might now have a similar/same understanding of apostolic succesion and ordination but during the reformation thy were more reformed, which broke their chain
Can you make a video about interest and if it is sinful or not?
For a second, I got confused and thought you meant being interested in things.
Catholics when they go to a protestant church, and all they find is two or more gathered in the Lord's name: 😯😯
Catholics trying not be obnoxious challenge impossible:
@ alfieingrouille1528 yeah what’s the biggest Christian denomination in the world again?
Not relevant to my point @jvoges
@jvoges not relevant to my point
@jvoges wow youtube is being annoying
I’d like to build churches in Minecraft.
Do you go to Church every Sunday?
Same, I’ll join the KingdomCraft server once I get a PC.
@@deutschermichel5807 I go to church consistently unless if something happens that causes otherwise.
@@nvgboiyes6386 you better do hahahaha
Awesome Vid once again Z
Apostolic succession is real and established by the writings of James and Paul who ordained their successors to continue the teachings of Christ. The roots of this authority are found in Christ granting His authority to His Apostles.
Neither James nor Paul were one of the 12 apostles. That appears to throw a wrench into your claim, doesn’t it? Do you believe there were more than 12 apostles?
@@SoliDeoGloriadeusvult Paul was personally made an Apostle to the Gentiles by Jesus and was recognized as such by the 12. Moreover, Matthias was not an original Apostle but was chosen to replace Judas among the 12 by a casting of lots after he had been chosen to be among the final two of 120 possible disciples.
@@SoliDeoGloriadeusvult James wasn’t an apostle?
@@jamesbishop3091 I believe he's talking about James the brother of Jesus.
@@SoliDeoGloriadeusvult good point (also Luke 9)
the difference between anglicans and EO is that the anglicans removed the sacrificial nature of the priesthood, thus making the ordinations invalid thus no apostolic succession, the EO's ordinations are illicit (illegal) but not invalid (no more apostolic succession)
Congratulations brother!
I like apostolic succession because denominations with bishopric lineages are better at avoiding heresies than your random cult or non-denominational who may have a strayed heretic following gnosticism, Arianism, Nestorianism, or other heresies, would be problematic.
Knowledge of the legitimate successor from predecessor is truly better.
The succession of bishops who inherit apostolic knowledge.
They're walls that guard against the sin of wicked heresies.
Yes it's real, look up the Patriarchs of the East Orthodox Church. Patriarch of Jerusalem goes back to James, Patriarch of Alexandria has Mark as the first bishop, Patriarch of Constantinople has bishop Andrew, and Antioch to Peter who later founded the church in Rome.
Eastern Orthodox don't have women "priests." Anglicans do. Therefore Anglican apostolic succession has a tendency to be invalid
Congratulations on your wedding
Congrats on the marriage. May God bless you both to be fruitful in child bearing and the spreading of the word!
The Bishopric apostolic succession was kept in some of the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran churches as well as the Anglican.
Well, this is interesting timing. I was just talking with friends at small group about trying to determine the succession of a certain pastor. I'm a baptist working towards getting ordained, if God is willing, and I've been concerned about doing it the right way. Now, I'll be thinking on whether I need to find succession in the pastoral role, or in the teaching alone. You've given me something to think on, RZ. Thanks.
(Also, nice to see another teetotaler who thinks alcohol is good. *Just because I don't drink doesn't mean you shouldn't. Just don't get drunk.* )
It's both succession of ordination and of teaching. If Arius had been a bishop and went on to "ordain" Arian "priests," they would not be Christian priests but something else.
The idea of apostolic succession is very reminiscent of when Jesus had his authority questioned while teaching in the temple (Matthew 21 and Mark 11). It can very easily become being given authority by man, when the authority should come from God alone. So, without apostolic succession how do we determine true churches? Test what is being preached, or what is being taught, or the core values of the congregation in question against scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17). If what they do is in line with scripture, then their faith is true as their works will show their faith (James 2:14-26). There are disagreements between the doctrines of denominations, but at its core, the way to determine a true church is not apostolic succession, rather it is the church's teachings and if they're in line with scripture.
Bro literally just making up his own definition of apostolic succession so that he can have it in his denomination
"since however it would be very tedious in such a volume as this to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self pleasing, by vanity, or by blindness and perverse opinio, assemble in unauthorized meetings, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles peter and Paul; also the faith preached to men, WHICH COMES DOWN TO OUR TIME BY MEANS OF THE SUCCESSIONS OF THE BISHOPS. For it is a matter of necessity that every church agree with this church on account of it's preeminent authority..." St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:3:2
Great video bud!!
Here is my view on the apostolic succession: If the argument is that all it takes is to be appointed by someone that was appointed by someone etc etc that was originally appointed by the apostles, then all the original Protestant denominations are also apostolic churches because they were all originally RC clergy when they got started. However, if right teaching is the evidence of apostolic succession, then as soon as someone contradicts the Bible, the chain is broken. Or at least, it's broken when that person with flawed judgment appoints someone else.
Sorry by sibling in Christ, but that is simply not true.
No Protestant denominations were started by a validly-ordained Catholic bishop. Martin Luther was only a friar. Not a single bishop supported his schism. Calvin wasnʼt a bishop either. Anglicanism was forcefully founded by the English Crown and the original Baptist denominations are completely lay lead and have no priests at all.
In Germany, the Protestant Reformation started and was only “successful” because a handful of mighty lords and noble princes wanted to disown the Catholic monasteries and abbeys and steal all their art and gold for the state. They therefors accepted Lutherʼs teachings and forced every citizen to become Protestant. The Calvinist Margrave of Brandenburg went so far to appoint his own bishop, command him to marry a woman and watch them have sex to made sure he isnʼt celibate. But Luther was all okay with this because in lack of a bishop, he declared that the state is now the church. Luther basically gave the church governance to the state, because he didnʼt have any bishops. This state of affairs lasted until 1918, when the German monarchy was abolished and the Protestant kings and dukes lost their thrones aswell as their episcopacy. But because of the century-old tradition of state governed Protestant churches, it was easy for Hitler and the Nazis to bring through the Gleichschaltung of Protestantism and the Nazi Party and State by appointing the Reichsbishop.
During all those 500 centuries, the Catholic Church remained independent from state control and upheld the apostolic succession that Jesus started. The Catholic Church to this day and until the Second Comming will be governed by bishops independent of monarchs, lords, national socialists and other Protestantsʼ suggar daddy
@@deutschermichel5807 Martin Luther is not the founder, he's a reformer, who wanted to put the Bible back as the Supreme Authority. He did not start a church, he restored it, by removing innovations which were not Biblical. Saying "he was not a bishop" is just pushing the goal post. Martin Luther was a member of the clergy, as were the priests that helped implement the reformation. If they were appointed in error then that just calls into question your appointment process.
The RC Church clearly does not have an unbroken line of succession in the Papacy, as it has gotten out of step with the clear teachings of the Bible. Going at least as far back as far as the 11th century AD, when Pope Gregory banned the clergy from marriage. This was a fiat declaration which is not from God, and which is contradictory to the direct commands from God which are found in the Bible. Someone who goes against God, and speaks against his commands, does not speak for God. At least as far back as this point, the RC church has been off the rails, and the line of succession is broken (if it ever was real in the first place). Coming to the modern times, if Pope Francis says one thing, and Jesus says another, which do you go with?
@@Procopius464 Catholics don't view priests as having authority to ordain. So while Luther's individual ordination was valid, they would say he did not have the ability to perform ordination of other priests. That's the view that all the apostolic churches share, so you'll be fighting an uphill battle to try to convince them that priests have that authority.
@@not_milk I don't really expect the majority of papists to change.
@@not_milk Well, they're papists. They will agree with whatever the Pope says.
"The Church Fathers taught apostolic succession, let me explain why they were actually referring to the complete opposite of what they actually said"
I feel like your presuppositions kept you from understanding what was said
I think he's saying that apostolic succession is a succession of doctrine instead of say Holy Orders.
Although I'd personally argue that at least when Irenaeus referenced the doctrine, he spoke about doctrine coming from institutional apostolic succession rather than the apostolic succession being the succession of doctrine
But by your definition, many PSU churches don’t have apostolic succession as they don’t preach the Word nor have proper sacraments
Even if you view apostolic succession as based on teachings, you would still recognize that Protestant teachings differ from those of Orthodoxy and Catholicism, such as the concept of sola scriptura. I tend to align with the original Church’s view on apostolic succession, which both Orthodoxy and Catholicism support. While some Protestant churches, like the Anglicans, might have closer ties to apostolic succession, not all Protestants necessarily do.
Regarding the validity of Jehovah's Witnesses, if all Protestants are considered valid, then Jehovah's Witnesses, who emerged from Adventism (which in turn split from Baptists), should also be considered valid. Since Jehovah's Witnesses were founded by an Adventist minister, their legitimacy could be supported by your theory of succession based on teachings.
Edit: Also, Charle Taze Russel himself said he wasn't trying to make a new denomination.
"Russell was a charismatic figure, but claimed no special revelation or vision for his teachings and no special authority on his own behalf. He stated that he did not seek to found a new denomination, but intended to gather together those who were seeking the truth of God's Word "during this harvest time".[20][21][22] He wrote that the "clear unfolding of truth" within his teachings was due to "the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out."[23]" - WIkipedia
I've had Jehovah's Witnesses agree with the trinity depending how you define it, they often misunderstand the trinity and christian ideology in general.They don't agree the holy spirit comes form son tho.
"Christendom’s churches say that he is. “In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power and eternity” is how the Trinity is defined. But the Bible does not say this." -JW
However I've had some agree to the orthodox trinity.
" God the Father - The origin and creator of all things.
God the Son (Jesus Christ) - The incarnate God who provides salvation through His life and resurrection.
God the Holy Spirit - The divine presence who empowers and guides believers.
These three persons are distinct but share the same divine essence, meaning they are fully and equally God. The Orthodox Church emphasizes that the three persons are united in one divine nature, working in perfect unity and harmony."
We don't have an "arbitrary "view of apostolic succession as Catholics and that's an offensive missrepresentation. Anglicans don't have valid orders for several reasons, not just "because they schismed". It's because they
1.) Changed the words of consecration. You can't do that. It's a different rite and it isn't legitimate. Think about Mormonism; they aren't baptising trinitarian, hence there is no baptism.
2.) Have a different intent. Unlike the Orthodox etc, the Anglican view of Priesthood does not have the same role as a real Priest, meaning a sacrificial priesthood. It isn't possible to be ordained a Priest if you don't intend on being a Priest. That being said, some Anglicans might have valid orders if they were ordained by an Old Catholic Bishop since theyre in communion together and sometimes UtrechtSee and OC bishops do ordinations. Probably not due to point #2, but it's not been officialy ruled out.
Did you even google why we believe what we believe?
11:21 That’s why people called Smith the new Muhammad at the time.
The podcast is more interesting than the video. Missing those other video graphics white board feel
How do the people who hold the "Apostles were perfect and never got anything wrong" view reconcile Peter And the Judaizers with that view?
Do you think you could talk to Andrew Wilson, "The Crucible"?
Oh my Lord, a God sent! I was researching this topic and the resources on the protestant perspective on this are scarce. However I still do have persisting questions. For example, hebrews 6 say that the laying on of hands is fundamental. We observe that the act is always done by someone of greater authority. Additionally, Bishops were always ordained by Apostolic Authority, even through delegates like Timothy and Titus. Does this imply that when the apostles died, the greater authorities who performed the laying on of hands were bishops by apostolic authority and hence being called fundamental? Also, does Timothy and Titus having a similar role indicate that the development is biblical and divinely inspired as a restoration of how it was in the apostolic days? I would like Protestant perspectives, please.
Anglicanism is essentially the only protestant branch that preserves apostolic succession in the form that the early church had. It's even fairly clearly laid out in the canons of Nicea that the bishop has an essential role in church hierarchy.
Outside of Anglicanism, protestantism primarily appeals to the fact that there is overlap between the terms of Bishop and Presbyter in the Bible and in the earliest fathers. So outside of Anglicanism, most protestant branches believe there is no difference between a bishop and presbyter, and that distinction came later as a development in church history.
There is some nuance with how certain Lutherans describe the situation, but it's mostly similar to this.
In regards to "Apostolic Succession" we have the direct teachings of the Apostles and Jesus Christ himself in the New Testament, this idea we need to believe the "Church Fathers" because they claim to have special knowledge passed down to them is heresy. This is elevating the tradition of men over the Word of God (Mark 7) If Transubstantiation was the common practice in the early Church, why did none of the actual Apostles command it or teach it?
Hey Zoomer. You probably won’t read this, but if you somehow manage to, then I’d like to request something. I’ve been a recent convert to Presbyterianism because of your videos, and I just figured, could you maybe do an updated version of the “All Denominations Explained in 10 minutes” but with extra denominations, like Dutch Reformed, Quaker/Amish, Nazarene/Holiness, Moravians, Church of Christ and some others?
Can you do another understanding video? Understanding Pentecostalism?
Impossible
I can personally name 10+ MBB who lead 3rd and 4th generation churches with 100+ believers, they’ve never been baptized by an ordained anything. I guess when they baptize someone it “doesn’t count”
Btw 0.1% of the average American church’s budget goes to UPG missions, but yeah let’s argue about apostolic succession
Basically every church views baptism as a sacrament that can be administered by any Christian as long as it's performed properly.
Apostolic succession has more to do with the validity of ordination and ability to administer communion.
I’m very much inclined to agree with you you redeem zoomer in terms of apostolic succession, being more of the word of God passing on between believers if you look at the earliest form of the church they didn’t have the structure organization of the Catholic Church had the underground church like something in North Korea or China have the word of God praying in small groups away from central authority per se
So essentially you're saying succession matters for doctrine but not for ordination.
In which case, can I ordain myself as a pastor independently? I don't think the Presbyterian church would recognize that as valid ordination. So there is some sense of succession that they view necessary. It's just not important to most on whether or not that succession can be traced back to the apostles.
11:08 from devil maybe
The historic view of apostollic succession is not what you describe at 2:20, despite what ecclesialist want us to believe it.
In the early church history, apostolic succession is not a chain of ordination by the laying of hand, but it is the line of succession of certain church's (like the roman church, or the alexandrian church) leadership. It is not a line of who ordained who, but who followed who after the death of the leaders. a bit like royal succession in our days. In Rome, the apostolic succession is Peter -> Linus -> Anaclet -> Clement -> Evaristus. Each one becoming bishop after the death of the previous one, not the imposition of hands. This succession is attestable. But the succession of laying of hands is unproven.
The laying on of hands being the ordination of successors is established in 1 Timothy.
he never said he thought it was a historically a succession of laying of hands. He says what he thinks the historical view is at 5:30 .
@@Rivian_Jedi You are right. But I am not saying that the laying of hand did not happen in the Roman line. I am just saying that what the early church meant by "apostollic succession" was not the chain of ordinations but was the succession of office.
Clement for example, according to eusebius, was ordinated by Peter. Yet still according to Eusebius, the apostollic succession of the church of Rome is Peter -> LINUS -> Clement. and not Peter -> Clement. Therefore, when the early church speak of apostolic succesion they didn't intend a chain of ordination, but a succession of office, when one take the office of the previous leader at his death.
@@IamGrimalkin Yes I also believe the true apostolic succession is the apostolic succession of teaching. But I am saying that the vision of apostollic succession being a chain of people laying hands on other is not even the view of the early church.
@@hll97fr16you are equivocating between two different but co-true meanings of the term
Lol on the topic of being a teetotaler, you should make a video on grape juice in communion
>I don't think the Puritans were opposed to alcohol
Fun fact, the reason they chose Massachusetts as their location instead of Virginia was because they ran out of beer on the Mayflower. I'm not joking.
I can't wait to see what happens when Zoomer visits an actual non denominational church
Matt. 18:20
For where there are two or three gathered into My name, there am I in their midst.
*Perry Robinson enters the chat*
Make sure you file for tax exemptions
11:57 no , we have Actual gospel, and we read it every mass , we don't preach things like purgatory, or intercesion of the saints on every mass
Just curious, are there any Church fathers who support the idea that to have a valid church you don't need a line of bishops? I used to think Jerome thought so, but even he says only bishops can ordain.
Begome Lutheran😏
I think the succession of doctrine vs. succession of office/officer dichotomy is a false one. (I'm speaking as a Lutheran, btw) -- and ecumenical theology has tended to strike a balance.
It's certainly the case that the earliest fathers seemed to emphasize succession of teaching vis-à-vis the gnostic heretics -- RATHER than a mechanistic, tactile succession of "getting zapped by the right zapper." Nevertheless, the "apostolic deposit" as a set of teachings (that needs guarding) is an abstraction apart from an authoritative "apostolic office" that is given to teach/guard it on behalf of the church (same principle applies for sacraments). Teaching and teaching AUTHORITY are both necessary (as well as taught community) -- none of these can be pitted against each other, and that is what a healthy theology of 'apostolic succession' was originally intended to safeguard.
Very good video. I would still say you need to have the laying on of hands going back to the apostles for valid sacraments, but a succession of teaching is also a part of it. case in point with the CofE, they have Apostolic succession, but not in terms of doctrine, or at least, not anymore. They go hand in hand, so to speak
Here’s a biblical standard for apostolic succession: if you claim you have it but either your church teachings don’t date back to the Apostolic Era, you don’t call Mary blessed or something about your church contradicts the Apostles Creed, then you don’t have apostolic succession.
To my Orthobros and my Roman friends, be on your best behavior here. There are productive and unproductive ways to engage this topic.
It doesn’t help that we are constantly being strawmanned
@@carsonianthegreat4672that happens to Protestants as well. We can all do better.
this goofy ahh channel and this goofy ahh series is unbelievable
I think the Catholic Church does not recognise apostolic succession of Anglicans because of the change in ordination rite in 1896.
Yeah
Did they before 1896?
I mean, did Rome recognize Anglican ordination in, say, 1600?
@@JP-rf8rryes, Rome did recognize the original Anglican ordinations. It wasn’t until the Anglicans changed the form and intention of their ordination rite that their orders were invalid.
5:14 no, Martin was monk
He was a priest. He was ordained in 1507
*Smiles in Congregational Polity*
Would it be valid for lay people to administer sacraments if they are unable to attend a church? (Shipwrecked, in a country where the church is seriously persecuted, etc.) I realize it’s the exception rather than the rule but interested to hear your thoughts
Luke 9
@@keithwysocki9003 That's a tough question and from what I understand the Catholic position is that it depends on the Sacrament (I could be wrong on this). In an extreme circumstance even a layperson can baptize and an extraordinary minister can perform sacraments like Communion I believe. However, even if you were unable to take Communion in such a dire circumstance I don't think God would hold you to your Sunday Mass obligation. 😂
8:19 crypto Catholic??? Based
On the topic of Baptists what do you think about the Trail of Blood?
Thatʼs literally a lie.
Day 5 of asking Redeemed Zoomer to livestream himself listening to the 2006 album Go by the Newsboys because it's good contemporary Christian music
My non denom friend and i have been arguing about this all week. All cause some cowboy youtuber said catholics are going to hell if they believe Matthias wasnt a mistake. In the guy’s vid he said “jesus told them to wait, not to go hiring new apostles! Well after that Peter said “oops, now what?!” I said no Paul and Barnabas are named apostles. My friend said “barnabas was no apostle, neither was matthias, jesus chose paul. Men chose Matthias and Barnabas! I just dont know what to say other than if you have to add to the bible to make your case against catholicism, you arent going to convince anyone but ignorant people that already want to agree with you. Some protestants are witch hunting and not really following sola scriptura.
Apostolic replacement =/= apostolic succession.
How do I join this server?
Bro started a virtual Church in Minecraft
(What if you allow peopel to have communion on Saturday in your church?)
Sell a healing potion with the name: The Blood Of Christ.
Oh nah
I mean us Catholics can attend the Mass everyday and receive communion
@@jvoges +100 for dedication. But the keyword is"can". If the church was like in the first days of the church, ( every day, they would come together right?) it would result in the following out of "fake" Christians and prosperity preachers.
@@deutschermichel5807 yeah, and make is free on every Saturday( since on Sunday, the server is closed)
Redeemed Team UmiZoomi
the answer is yes
Then why does your 'theological' tradition fundamentally contradict in every major sense with the one from before the 'reformation'?
Do you really think 14th century catholicism is exactly identical with the 1st century church recorded in Acts?
@@einzelwolf3437 You mean the Church which preserved the book of Acts in the time of the persecution? Yes, it is in all core beliefs the Church holds to till the 14th century, and till today. The direct successors, a.k.a. the best friends and most trusted people of the apostles, clearly state from the early second century that the Eucharist during the liturgy isnt bread and wine anymore, but the Body and Blood of Christ. Check out the Didache, Polycarp and Irenaeus on this matter. If transsubstantiation is evidently true, based on the immeditate successors of the apostles and all to come after them, then all reformed traditions are automatically false.
Dp you think you will convert to Catholicism one day?
No
His mom is catholic, if that makes you feel better 😂
@@redeemedzoomer6053HELP
@@redeemedzoomer6053You will in heaven😉
@@fallenkingdom-zd8xh🤓
good explanation
Apolostic succession is important as a popular atheist line is that the gospels were not written by the stated authors but instead written years later by unknown authors as a kind of legend.
This isn't true at all the gospels were written by the authors and the early church fathers knew the authors were and so did their successors etc so it's important to say that it is very real.
Is it important in an rc or orthodox way. No as ultimately christ is the head and only head of the church and any other leader of church will always be fallible in some way because it is not christ
@@pgpython Yes, the Pope is fallible. Catholics agree. There have been bad men who have become Pope. We mainly believe that the Pope is only infallible when speaking infallibly and is in that moment guided by the Holy Spirit. It is VERY rare.
Christ gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins, cast out demons, heal the sick, etc.. Are you saying that these authorities died with the Apostles?
You would really hate how underground churches in closed countries operate… oh you were introduced to Jesus from a support-raised parachurch missionary? Sorry you don’t have a real church
Lol. There is practically zero overlap of Mormanism and Islam. Radically different theology. You legitimately don't know anything about Islam. If you're going to speak on something you don't agree on, you should understand what it is
According to this view of Apostolic succession, the ancient alleged "heretical gnostics" could very well have had a legitimate "true church", as you say, as their teachings of the Bible and sacraments, though going against the authority of the alleged fathers, may have been legitimate. The viciousness in which St. Iraneaus wrote "Against Heresies" says much of his honesty about a tradition that he clearly did not understand, and assuredly made countless errors against in his dissertation on Valentinian gnosticsm.
@RedeemedZoomer, I think you are totally underestimating the power of the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture to the believer. The priesthood of all believers is not just scriptural theoretically, it is very real. That is one reason that non-denominational churches spring up. John 17 explains it, and its purpose is to demonstrare the love of God to the world: people who have not yet heard of, or believed in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.
Also, prayers to saints and Purgatory both have a biblical basis and I’ll gladly point out how.