Thinking About Apostolic Succession
The ICCEC claims that tradition is an authoritative rule of faith.
The ICCEC stands squarely on the historic, undisputed teachings of orthodox Christianity as taught by Jesus, spread by the Apostles, defended by the Patriarchs of the Early Church, expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first millenium of its existence.
Hearkening back to this authoritative rule do we ever find it deemed licit for men to: (i) procure apostolic succession for themselves, (ii) and then go out and establish their own, separate and autonomous patriarchates?
We know what the Catholic Church would have to say about this, but what about the Orthodox churches?
If both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches condemn this use of apostolic succession (through an appeal to tradition), what evidence do we have that they are wrong and that this use of apostolic succession is, indeed, in line with "the historic, undisputed teachings of orthodox Christianity as taught by Jesus, spread by the Apostles, defended by the Patriarchs of the Early Church, expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first millennium of its existence"?
The logical conclusion of this use of apostolic succession is that any man or group of men who feels burdened or inspired by the Holy Spirit to be "raised by God to be a new jurisdiction", can go and procure apostolic succession for themselves and form their own separate, autonomous patriarch; and hence the Church will be composed of an untold number of separate, autonomous patriarchates, each essentially acting as its own church.
- What, then, do we make of the Apostles' and the Fathers' universal condemnation of schism and sectarianism? If this use of apostolic succession does not constitute schism and sectarianism, then what kind of schism and sectarianism were the Apostles and the Fathers addressing?
- What, then, do we make of that part in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds where we--echoing the Fathers and the Councils--declare the Church to be both apostolic and one?
Finally, if this use of apostolic succession is licit, then why does it not occur to the hundreds of Protestant clergy who, every year, sacrifice their ministries and livelihoods to convert to the Catholic Church? If it really would be in perfect harmony with the faith handed down to us from the Apostles for these men to procure apostolic succession and begin their own autonomous patriarchates, why don't we see more of them doing it? It certainly would be a much less painful route. Why does it not occur to them? Are they just ignorant of this option? But if it really is part and parcel with the faith handed down to us from the Apostles, why doesn't everybody know about it?
posted by Keith @ 11:42 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Are Rome and Constantinople open to using the gifts of the Holy Spirit in a real way?
Which of those churches is the one true church? How can we know?
ICCEC did not create the schisms, which happened centuries ago, and would love to see reunion of all believers in Christ who accept the word of God, holy sacraments and priesthood. ICCEC is in fellowship with 20 million believers in the Brazilian National Apostolic Catholic Church, and is growing. ICCEC has a pure priesthood. ICCEC is a convergence movement, not a schism.
Re: Are Rome and Constantinople open to using the gifts of the Holy Spirit in a real way?
The Catholic Church is absolutely open to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. There is a thriving charismatic movement within the Catholic Church which, among other things, received a blessing from Pope John Paul II. It should be pointed out, however, that if the gifts of the Holy Spirit were suppressed in the Catholic Church, although this would be a dismaying state of affairs, it would not disprove the Catholic Church’s claim to be the true Church. The Church is both human and divine and, as such, is always in need of renewal.
“There is no need for the Holy Spirit to come back to the Church. He has never left the Church. Legitimate renewal consists in recognizing his presence and obeying it.”
—George William Rutler, A Crisis of Saints
Re: Which of those churches is the one true church? How can we know?
The same way that we know what is the true religion when faced with the truth claims of Christianity, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, etc.: We (i) pray, and (ii) examine the facts.
"The Catholic apologist bases his argument on the appeal to external facts. Catholicism to-day fights alone against a vast array of heresies which agree only in their appeal from objective truth to subjective prejudice, from external facts to personal intuition."
—Arnold Lunn, Now I See
500 years of Protestantism has heaped truth claims upon truth claims so that the common man is tempted to despair of knowing the truth. It has made prevalent the intellectual temptation to think that since everybody has different notions of the truth, no on must possess it, or that, at least, it’s virtually impossible to find out who does. And there we have the postmodern nihilism of the modern West.
Re: ICCEC did not create the schisms, which happened centuries ago, and would love to see reunion of all believers in Christ who accept the word of God, holy sacraments and priesthood. ICCEC is in fellowship with 20 million believers in the Brazilian National Apostolic Catholic Church, and is growing. ICCEC has a pure priesthood. ICCEC is a convergence movement, not a schism.
The ICCEC may not have “created” schism, but according to Tradition it participates in schism by receiving apostolic succession from a schismatic group (the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil, which was founded by a Catholic bishop after he was excommunicated by the Catholic Church.)
“Though they had mission in the Roman Church, they had none to leave it, and withdraw her children from her obedience. Truly the commissioner must not exceed the limits of his commission, or his act is null.”
—St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy
And, yes, according to tradition, the ICCEC participates in this schism by (i) receiving apostolic succession from a schismatic, and (ii) not repairing the schism by coming into full communion with the Successor of Peter, as St. Gregory taught:
“Those whom the error of the schismatics severs from the unity of the Church, strive ye, for your own reward, to recall to the unity of concord.”
—St. Gregory, To Brunichild, Epistle 11
Again, this is not a “rule” created by the Catholic Church, but by the Church Fathers, Councils and saints—which the ICCEC itself claims to be authoritative.
As for the ICCEC being a convergence movement and not a schism, this oft-repeated claim remains merely gratuitous until substantiated with Scripture and Tradition—the very standards of orthodoxy claimed by the ICCEC.
The purpose of this website is to hold up the ICCEC to those standards.
To anonymous...
"pure priesthood"??? For how long? 2000 years, perhaps??
No one can stay "pure" forever... we are all fallen.
In Christ,
"The ICCEC may not have “created” schism, but according to Tradition it participates in schism by receiving apostolic succession from a schismatic group (the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil, which was founded by a Catholic bishop after he was excommunicated by the Catholic Church.)"
What Tradition are you talking about? Which document? And please, do not quote any Vatican documents. If possible, base your arguments on Scripture or something from the Fathers of the Church. I believe that the only "standard" that the ICCEC subscribes to is the writings of the Early Fathers, early Church documents, and Scripture, and not some Vatican document.
Why does it matter to you if the ICCEC got their apostolic succession from a schismatic Church? Isn't a schismatic Catholic Church nonetheless better than a Church who strays away from the essential doctrines and beliefs of the Church? I think you should be thankful that the ICCEC has revived tradition and has brought back many Pentecostals and Evangelicals to the traditional/sacramental fold.
I think it would be wonderful if the time, effort, and talent that you expend on some perceived divine mission to be a spiritual watchdog over the ICCEC could be better spent in actually ministering to the unchurched.
Your stated purpose, "The purpose of this website is to hold up the ICCEC to those standards." sounds lofty on the surface. However, it is, in reality, born in the heart of hubris. The most logical question to ask is, "Who died and made you the Pope or a Patriarch of any other Church?"
I think it would be wonderful if the time, effort, and talent that you expend on some perceived divine mission to be a spiritual watchdog over the ICCEC could be better spent in actually ministering to the unchurched.
Your stated purpose, "The purpose of this website is to hold up the ICCEC to those standards." sounds lofty on the surface. However, it is, in reality, born in the heart of hubris. The most logical question to ask is, "Who died and made you the Pope or a Patriarch of any other Church?"
Yes, indeed.
Yet another example of someone, who, when met with a view that challenges his own, merely judges the challenging view with his own (without ever allowing it to be challenged).
Some presuppositions are at work here, but the major one is this: that the Catholic religion is false. Every judgment you cast against me would be true if the Catholic Church is not what it claims to be. However, what if it is true that the Catholic Church is “the sole Church of Christ...which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care”? What if it is true that “it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained”? What if it is true that “it was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.”? This is the view with which I challenge yours; let us, for one moment, consider the possibility that it could be true, and judge your accusations against me accordingly.
No longer does the accusation of “spiritual watchdog over the ICCEC” hold, because to merely challenge others outside of the fullness of truth, with the fullness of truth, cannot be properly described as such.
It is a thoroughly Protestant presupposition that all efforts of evangelization should be directed at the “unchurched”. First of all, the fact that all who profess the Name of Christ are not united in one house, is a scandal to the unbeliever and perpetuates his unbelief; and so, apologetics helps to bring more souls to Christ in the long run. Second of all, if the Catholic Church really is, as I propose it to be, the one house, established by Christ as the true home of all Christians, then to evangelize the “churched” who are outside of that house is to do the work of Christ. Furthermore, please find for me, in the ICCEC’s self-professed standard of orthodoxy, the rule which declares that what I do here is wrong and such energies should, instead, be expended on the “unchurched”.
And for your next accusation against me...it does not even matter whether the Catholic Church’s claims are true or no. You say that to hold the ICCEC to its own professed standard of orthodoxy is “borne in the heart of hubris”. We humans are not possessors of truth; we merely participate in it—in Christ’s truth—therefore, it is always incumbent upon us to demonstrate that what we claim to be true, actually is. To do otherwise is make oneself equal to truth and not its servant. Therefore, I contend that to regard public claims which have bearing upon the eternal salvation of men’s souls as above public scrutiny is a matter of hubris. It seems to me that if the ICCEC is a true servant of the truth it should welcome the opportunity to demonstrate with humility that it participates in Christ’s truth in regards to the Church. To the degree that it takes a “how dare you challenge us” stance, reveals that it considers itself equal to and owners of truth, and not subject to it.
As for “who died and made you Pope or a Patriarch of any other Church” being “the most logical question to ask”....let us, for one moment, pretend that the Catholic Church’s claims (stated above) are true. If that is the case then the ICCEC is outside of what Christ established and therefore outside of Christ’s truth and will for them. And if I am to understand you correctly, you are saying that logic demands that one can only challenged those who are outside of Christ’s truth and will if he is their Pope or Patriarch?
Post a Comment
<< Home