[quote]dond1esel wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but EVERY church will either claim or abrogate (sole) apostolic succession. It would be strange not to.
[/quote]
No. Most protestant denomonations and groups which call themselves Christian (which may or may not have stemmed from protestantism) have given up the institution of bishops, and in many cases priests. Historically there is no doubt or debate that bishops came from bishops back to the apostles and that this was the model for ALL Christian groups until around 1200. Keep in mind that until 1054 there was only one Christian organization on earth (other than a few tiny fringe sects) which split into the orthodox and roman/frankish branches. From there, the Roman branch has split into about 10,000 denomonations and sects.
In 1900, its estimated that 40% of the earths population was christian. About 20% was Orthodox and about 15% was Roman with the other 5% being other Christian groups. The Orthodox were decimated by communism-a million priests killed in the Soviet Union in one year alone, and by Moslem massacres.
In response to the lineage question, for example, the Episcopalian and Lutheran churches consider their succession to go back through the Roman bishops, and through the “unified” orthodox/roman churches of pre 1054. They do not consider themselves to have a true and different lineage, but rather that at some point their leaders reformed the mistakes of the Roman medieval period-such as endulgences and other scandolous issues.
Luthor actually wrote letters to the Bishop (Patriarch) of Constantinople when he first sought to fix the problems of the Roman church, but letters took a long time to get through back then and he got impatient and made something up himself instead.
There are only really 2 debates about lineage that any scholar makes now.
-
Is there a legitimate connection between the Orthodox church of around 300, all the way back to the apostles, or was that connection invented around 300 by the orthodox church and
-
Is apostolic succession important, or was its importance invented by the Orthodox and Romans to give them greater legitimacy.
My best research (and keep in mind that I converted to Orthodoxy) leads me to accept that there was an unbroken Christian tradition from no more than 50 or 60 AD-within the lifetime of the Apostles-to the unquestionable date of the existance of the complete institution of the Orthodox church around 300 in the Byzantine Empire. For Example, James (not one of the 12 apostles, but one chosen by the 12 apostles themselves after pentecost) was bishop of the church in Jerusalem by 50 AD. The man who succeeded him as Bishop of Jerusalem writes that he was “ordained” by James. The man that succeeded him wrote that he was ordained by him who was ordained by James. This can be traced to the modern Orthodox bishop of Jerusalem, as well as the other main centers of early christianity, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, the Orthodox church in India which traces its bishops back to Thomas, and others.
All christian groups that claim apostolic succession of bishops trace their succession through the Orthodox church. The question is whether their reforms (mostly against Rome) were legitimate.
