Anyone here in apologetics?

[WarriorAngel]

Who can explain Apostolic Succession to our protestant brethren??

:scratch:

[Colabomb]

I understand it, I'm just not good at explaining it :P

[WarriorAngel]

I dont know if that's the case, or if it takes a certain amount of 'realization' to receive it.

[Simon_Templar]

In the apologetics forum?

[WarriorAngel]

Just wondering how to dialog with a protestant.

Any good key phrases, ideas or words that would give them cause to ponder what Succession actually is...?

[Simon_Templar]

well I think part of the problem that occurs between Catholics and Protestants is that they speak different languages :)

I know that a big jump in my understanding of Catholicism was when I began to figure out what Catholics meant by the phrases they used etc, as opposed to what I thought they meant.

To use a current issue as an example. When Pope Benedict re-affirmed that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and all other groups do not meet the requirements of being a church.
Most protestants have a different ecclesiology than Catholics and they see "church" as synonymous with "christian" in many cases. Thus to many protestant in this statement they beleive the Pope is saying that they are not really christians.

In trying to explain apostolic succession there are a number of issues that will come up. It really depends on which particular group of protestants you address, but many don't have a concept of Church authority that even comes close to the Catholic view. Thus they wouldn't see the point or the value of Apostolic Succession.

So, to really get into this conversation you'd probably have to try and assess where the person stands in their understanding of church authority, like the authority to teach doctrine, the authority to discipline the flock, etc.

In addition, most protestants aren't sacramental at all, or they have a different doctrine of sacraments in which the benefit depends solely on the faith of the person receiving etc.


So, in order to really have a conversation on apostolic succession, I think there is a lot of ground work to lay first. Otherwise, many won't see the need, or the point.

[Countrygirl1976]

I think that all churches have one main thing in common and that is we believe in Jesus and through him we are saved. Because in the end if we don't know him we are truly lost.

[WarriorAngel]

HI countrygirl, so wuuld you say really knowing Him is about the self's understanding, or knowing Him in what He has instituted in His Church in order that we know Him via His doctrines and sacraments and the Eucharist.

Knowing Him and partaking of Him are somewhat different.

I know of many folks in history, but I cannot spiritually partake of their flesh as I can our Lord.



Thanks Simon...I see many who deny succession is necessary, but for them to acknowledge what has always transpired in history would be eventual acceptance and thus denial of their own churches.

[Simon_Templar]

I guess if I was trying to explain succession to a protestant, i would start by focusing on the idea that succession is about the passing on of authority by the laying on of hands.

I'd look at the scriptural examples which mentioned laying on of hands and talk about how the power and authority of the apostles was passed on to the people that they appointed through the laying on of hands, which is what ordination to holy orders is, or is supposed to be.

The questions you are likely to face is #1 can you really prove that there is an unbroken line of succession. Probably the biggest question you will face is, doesn't an ungodly person break the line of succession. If a bishop is wicked, how can he pass on authority etc.

Even protestants who can accept the idea of succession are likely to think that there is no valid succession because they are likely to think that any really valid succession was broken during the dark ages through the middle ages when the churches were often politicized and had ungodly men appointed to offices for political reasons etc.