Talk:Apostolic succession

LDS (Mormons) understanding (#1)

Article says:

They believe Christ returned to the earth in the early 19th century

Mormons believe Christ returned to earth in 19th century? I thought it was just the angel Moroni... -- SJK

No, supposedly Christ himself returned as well. God the Father, too. --Dmerrill

---

I'll wait for a moment for an explanation, but the deleted sentence contrasting the LDS and Catholic view is crucial, it seems to me. Is there some reason that the LDS and Catholic principles should not be directly contrasted? The LDS has made claims against the Catholic principle: didn't the deleted sentence clarify what the Catholic principle is, without being redundant? I request that the person who deleted it, would put it back - or I will, if there is no reasoned objection. — Mkmcconn

A fuller contrast probably would be useful in a separate paragraph. The primary problem with the deleted sentence (which modified the original) was that it "put words in the mouth" of the LDS view: an LDS claim in catholic-like language. So, why merely delete it? Short explanation: I didn't have time to modify and expand upon it and it wasn't particularly crucial to have it in their NOW the way it was. Longer explanation: I think the objective of wikipedia is magnificent which is why I'm participating. However, one problem I have with the process is that wikipedia articles are getting more and more exposure while the info it presents is not necessarily reliable. If there were some sort of disclaimer on articles for the casual observer that the articles were in progress and not necessarily accurate, I could probably care less....BUT I don't want casual observers going away with the wrong idea. IMO, deletion with merely some notice is appropriate so long as the history of the deleted material continues to be available. On another matter....watch out for anti-mormon material...it tends to take it upon itself to interpret LDS doctrine and impose quotes of church leaders as authoritive or put their words in a false light. -Randy 11/23/02

That's understandable reason for deleting something. However, it would be helpful if the deleted content were pasted into the Talk page (here) along with a brief description of why it was deleted. That way it will be easier for others to find the change without hunting through the history, and if the reason is given, someone else might find a way to better express or balance the information in a more neutral or accurate fashion. This seems to be the general convention in Wikipedia that has worked fairly well in lots of controversial articles. Wesley

An explanatory note in the edit summary is also nice, and almost always sufficient. Something like "LDS believe Jesus is the (OT) God of Israel" would be helpful. Mkmcconn

I went back in and moved the paragraph emphasizing the unbrokeness of the apostolic succession to the end of the article. I think the previous paragraph with the LDS view is a good lead into it. When I get a chance I'll go back and add some LDS view as to the meaning of "the gates of hell shall not prevail", Christ's promise of being with apostles to the end, and "upon this rock" I will build my church. -Randy 11/23/02

I'm sure you (is it Randy?) don't mean that the paragraph about the LDS is supposed to be out of the LDS mouth. You have a right to expect a fair description of the LDS, though - an accurate description. If a description, then the contrast to catholicism was useful - and that contrast is, that there is a single historical apostolic foundation for the entire Church according to Catholics, compared to multiple historical foundations according to the Mormons. This description was intended merely to be a summation of what you and other Mormon contributors have been adding to Wikipedia concerning how authority was restored to Joseph Smith, as well as what has been written about the visit of Jesus to America. I didn't consult "anti-mormon" material, and it wasn't intended to be an attack on Mormonism. Anyway, I think that Wesley's added sentence removes the need for replacing the deletion. — Mkmcconn

I think that the whole two paragraphs on the LDS/Mormon view of apostolic succession is irrelevent, is an idiosyncratic extension of the concept of apostolic succession, and is best placed as a reference, with an article on the subject at a link. Even logically, speaking of "renewing" apostolic succession, after a 'break' is on pretty thin ground. Can we keep the article a little relevent at least. The LDS spiel looks very like a bit of religious propaganda to me. Meabhar 22:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Roman Catholic understanding

This article should contain a thorough delineation of the apostolic succession for the various religious groups which emphasize succession in terms of lines of authority. I was curious as to why in the Christianity article Mkmccon deleted as "historically inaccurate" a reference that Catholics can trace their authority to a bishop in ancient rome who was apparently ordained by the apostles (either Peter or Paul)...yet emphasized the point that the pope can trace that line to the apostles. Lets see the details please. Do Catholics not trace their authority back to Clement, Anacletus and Linus, the early bishops of Rome? Do Catholics not view Clement as the successor of apostolic perogatives or privileges? If not, then who are the early intermediary successors of the apostles in the Catholic tradition? If so, why delete it? How is it "historically inaccurate"?

Well, without going through the old page versions, it's hard to know or remember exactly what text you're referring to. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make either. List of Bishops has links to lists of bishops in Rome, Constantinople, and elsewhere. No need to duplicate those lists here, but I'll add a link to that list. Wesley

It's not historically accurate to contrast Mormonism to Catholicism by saying that the entire hierarchy of the church is traceable to a single bishop of Rome - that's not what they say. The "Apostolic See" is succession from the apostles (plural). The uniqueness of Rome is that it is an uninterrupted succession of known names, carefully maintained, all the way back to Peter (who even he was not a pope himself, supposedly ordained the first bishop of Rome perhaps together with Paul). But Rome was not the only "apostolic see", and it was not the only line of succession. The Pope did not ordain all bishops; only those who were under his territorial jurisdiction. Alexandrian bishops did not go to Antioch to be ordained. Alexandria was "autocephalous". It had its own "pope" (and still does). It is true that the popes are traceable in a direct line. Apostolic succession does not have to do only with popes. See Episcopalian — Mkmcconn

Thanks for explanations, clarifications and links.

You are most sincerely welcome. Randy, why don't you get yourself a user name? I think that your contributions have been good, and you along with Quintessent and only a handful of others certainly know more about the LDS. It would be helpful for setting up your talk page, so that questions can be asked about issues that you are interested in, as well as to work through disagreements so that the entry/Talk pages can be even more topic-oriented. — Mkmcconn

Done. Randy is now BoNoMoJo

LDS (Mormons) understanding (#2)

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

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

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

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

Edward IV?

I didn't think Anglicanism was around in the time of Edward IV. Do you mean Edward VI (Henry VIII's son)?

JW's understanding

I added better information about Jw's. george 03:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Acts 12:2 passage re: James the Just is an argument from silence, rather than positive evidence that there was no successor. I adjusted the text so as not to overstate the facts. See also Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. Wesley 04:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Point of View, Factuality

Essentially a revert: removed two initial, newly-added paragraphs which seemed to have something to do with Orthodox theology, but not exactly (or maybe sedevancantist RC, but again, not exactly), and which were written in fairly strong POV terms. Don'tcha just love how these hot-button edits are so often done anonymously?--Midnite Critic 18:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

For your reading pleasure, here they are:

"The Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ defines that Apostolicity means that the Apostles have successors to their doctrine, authority and Orders. As such, those who do not profess the Catholic doctrine whole and entire and without any question, despite havin been consecrated bishop are not successors of the Apostles, while those that have been lawfully appointed by the Pope as bishops are successors of the Apostles, even prior to their consecration as bishop.

"The Vatican II Church, which claims the name of Catholic holds that men must be appointed bishop by the Pope and consecrated to be a successor of the Apostles. In fact, a man does not become Pope until he has been consecrated bishop, which is a departure from Catholic tradition which holds that a man becomes Pope the moment he accepts election, even before his consecration as bishop (if he has not been consecrated bishop.)"

Absence of references

e.g. for Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. – surely an oversight that the original contributor is going to remedy shortly? 21:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Primacy claims

I read on my Talk page "Please discuss any major changes/additions on the talk page of the article, as there seems to be some debate regarding your recent edits. Thanks...and merry Christmas. KHM03 13:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)". My thanks to KHMO3, with seasonal wishes, for being the only one not to think I'll magically disappear if reverted often enough.

So first let me point out that I changed nothing, not even very minor (except sections marked with a technically illegal number of = signs, the order should ==, === etc., never a single; even that is blindly reverted, but I suppose that is accidental).

Secondly I see no "debate" about the addition that I do make, and that is the problem: people shout "POV" at me without a shred of argumentation; I might learn something or even a lot if there were a debate, so I'm interested to see if this starts one. If anyone thinks the Catholic Encyclopaedia (one of the rare source that actually have a template for the frequent copyright-free use of its vast and well-reputed content, except on things outdated since the early 20th century) is wrong at some precise point(s), it's up to him to point out where, preferably with source(s), and possibly amend that part or counter it. Just ignoring the major use of the term in the largest religious organisation in wold history is to absurd for words, so even if someone thinks he can refute every single paragraph, shoving everything under the carpet is denying the sun: I clearly mark the section CLAIM, and the existence of a view relevant for a billion catholics is worth mentioning (no less then the existence of say superstition or long scientificaly refuted errors such as 'the earth is flat'), as long as it is not presented as fact- if you can think of rewording and addition to take out a fuse in that respect, pleaso do, but simply deleting the whole section is an inacceptable censorship of facts: religion IS belief, not only material truth. If someone were, for instance, to add a section on say protestant objections to the Catholic claims, that would be positive. So I keep restoring what is not even seriously challenged, but hope to learn what can be improved, and if that is the bulk of Catholic Encyclopaedia's text but for good reasons, fine, but I will not stand for what looks -for lack of any explanation at this point; I can only hope it is something more constructive- like a Catholicism-phobia, but please prove that impression entirely wrong! Fastifex 18:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection with adding a section regarding the RC view of apostolic succession. But what was added is massive compared to the rest of the article, which is disproportionate, ISTM. In any event, the onus of "proof," so to speak, is on those who want to drastically alter the article as it now stands. So making any substantial addition or subtraction should be proposed with explanation and justification so that there can be a consensus formed. As of this writing, at least, that hasn't happened. Rather, a gigantic chunk was added and then a complaint made when that chunk got reverted to the article's previous state. The term restoration has been used for that addition, but it's not a restoration if it's an addition to the article. Re-adding it after reversion doesn't count.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a good source, to be sure, but it is decidedly not representative of a NPOV. —Preost ^talk contribs 20:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There still is not a single element of argumentation against any part of Fastifex' contribution, so I will revert to his version (whether it is techically a restoration or revert is of no interest) what is not refuted- at this point, all. The 'previous state' of an article is NEVER relevant, nor the 'disproportionate' lenght of sections as such; if it were, it would be only normal that Catholicism, the world's largest religion ever, got a larger section, but feel free to add even more on protestant (or other) views if you feel (wrongly, but no bother) 'better' representation is achieved by quantity. The onus probandi is always on the side which challenges, and since Fastifex left every existing sentence in he didn't, so the burden of proof is entirely on the other side, which is utterly silent in every respect to the content, while admitting Catholic Encyclopaedia is a 'good source', so again it should should specify which of its elements are not NPOV but can be refuted or how they are best balanced by other facts. Arcarius 01:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

So you're telling me that anyone can add anything they like to any article, and the responsibility to prove that it shouldn't be there is on everyone else? Please reassure me that you aren't kidding. The reality is that there is a proposed addition to the article (which didn't get proposed, really, but just added) which radically changes the general shape it's had for well over a year. If only for the sake of politeness, such additions should be proposed and discussed on the talk page before they are added, not as posturing fait accompli challenges to objectors afterward.

The fact that the RCC is the world's largest religion is not really relevant in terms of determining what its amount of representation in an article is. Should there be an Islamic section of nearly equal size as a result? Surely Muslims might have an opinion on it.

The problem with this gigantic addition is mainly its size. It needs to be summarized. If there is a genuine feeling that there needs to be an article on Wikipedia which represents the RCC's view more thoroughly, then a separate article dedicated to that view can be created. On an article about apostolic succession in general, no one group should have a dominant representation. You may not know this, since your account has been editing on Wikipedia for only about a month (including only two Talk pages including this one), but disproportionate representation is frequently cited as a reason to trim certain sections of an article.

If engaging in what is normal for Wikipedia—proposing major additions (especially controversial ones) before making them—cannot be done regarding this article, ISTM that an administrator should be called in for arbitration. —Preost ^talk contribs 03:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

At a glance, I see two major problems with the added text itself, in addition to the procedural objections that ASDamick raised. First, it duplicates much of what was already said earlier in the article. Secondly, despite the intro to the section the text itself is plainly argumentative in tone, advocating its POV. It needs to be trimmed down and edited to integrate it with the rest of the article. I don't have time to undertake that task at the moment, so I'm going to remove the section as it is. However, I invite Fastifex or anyone else to re-add it in shortened form, adjusting both the content and style to better fit with the rest of the article. I'll leave the NPOV notice in place for now until it appears that we've reached some consensus on whether to include this section and if so, in what form. Wesley 05:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wesley sounds like he has finally got the idea: restyling and shortening may be in orther, and the same goes for the tone; so the NPOV notice now at least has an intentional basis. Until anyone follows up on his good intentions, I put the Primacy tetx back: the major use in Catholicism must a least be visible to anyone ready to work on reworking it. 10:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, respect the standard procedure, which is not to place disputed material in an article in hopes that it will be fixed. I've moved it here to the Talk page so that it can be worked on before it gets placed in the article. Why is this important? Remember that many people are reading Wikipedia who are not editors, so putting the text into the article as it stands gives the impression that it's the approved form of the article. —Preost ^talk contribs 13:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't much of the info already covered more succintly in the section entitled "Apostolicity as episcopal continuity"? Merry Christmas...KHM03 13:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

ASDamick is right to propose working on the text here (or some other out-of-the-way subpage) rather than in the article proper; it really isn't acceptable at all in the form it was first inserted. Secondly, I hope that whoever is trying to insert it will register and use a username. It isn't technically required, yet, although it may be soon if anonymous edits continue to be abused. For significant contributions like this, registering a username is at the very least good etiquette. Just as you mentioned me by my chosen username, it would be both convenient and polite if I could refer to you (singular or plural) by a name(s) of your choosing. Wesley 04:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed new section

I'm moving this section to the Talk so that it can be fixed before it's put into the article. —Preost ^talk contribs 13:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried my hand at summarizing the first section, "Roman claim of Primacy." I don't even know where to begin with the second section; it's a very different version of the church history of Britain than what I've heard or read. For me, that alone is enough to make me inclined to scrap the whole section or 95% of it, since the source of this history is probably as biased and involved as the histories I've read of it. For instance, I had thought that all the "Orthodox" monasteries were shut down and the rule of Rome imposed by force there sometime in the 11th and 12th centuries. Wesley 04:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...the Anglican section doesn't seem NPOV or entirely accurate. And it's way too long. The Anglican view can really be summed up in a paragraph or two. Maybe three. KHM03 12:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The Anglican section is plain wrong when it states that the 39 articles were a protestant Act. They were actually a compromise position between Protestants and Catholics, which is why many Anglo-Catholics today can claim to follow the 39 Articles completey. It is definitely not NPOV.--Hahaandy1 23:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone still think the proposed new section should go into the article, either as they are now or after additional edits? I think the 'Roman claim' might be ok, though I haven't checked to see how much it still duplicates other parts of the article. I don't think the Anglican section is ready at all and I'm not sure how to fix it; maybe someone else wants to tackle it? It's also ok with me if none of this gets added. Wesley 17:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, isn't it already pretty much covered elsewhere in the article? A twaek here or there might be better than a massive addition. KHM03 18:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Papacy's and Anglican primacy claims as St.Peter's Apostolic successor

Roman claim of Primacy

The principle underlying the Roman Catholic claim is contained in the idea of succession. "To succeed" is to be the successor of, especially to be the heir of, or to occupy an official position just after, as Victoria succeeded William IV. Now the Roman Pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position, and perform the functions of St. Peter; they are, therefore, his successors. St. Peter came to Rome, and ended there his pontificate; the Bishops of Rome who came after him held his official position in the Church. Beginning with the middle of the second century, there exists a consensus among the Church Fathers as to Peter's martyrdom in Rome. In the third century the popes claim authority from the fact that they are St. Peter's successors, and no one objects to this claim. The Antiochian Orthodox Church also claims this honor, as Peter was also bishop there before he was bishop in Rome, as Rome herself acknowledges. No city boasts the tomb of the Apostle but Rome, where he died.

This chain of documentary evidence, having its first link in Scripture itself, and broken nowhere, puts the sojourn of St. Peter in Rome among the best-ascertained facts in history. It is further strengthened by a similar chain of monumental evidence, which Lanciani, the prince of Roman topographers, sums up as follows: "For the archaeologist the presence and execution of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome are facts established beyond a shadow of doubt, by purely monumental evidence!" (Pagan and Christian Rome, 123).

• St. Peter's successors carried on his office, the importance of which grew with the growth of the Church. In 97 serious dissensions troubled the Church of Corinth. The Roman Bishop, Clement, unbidden, wrote an authoritative letter to restore peace. St. John was still living at Ephesus, yet neither he nor his interfered with Corinth. Before 117 St. Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church as the one which "presides over charity . . . which has never deceived any one, which has taught others." St. Irenaeus (180-200) states the theory and practice of doctrinal unity as follows, using Rome as an example of apostolic succession:

With this Church [of Rome] because of its more powerful principality, every Church must agree, that is the faithful everywhere, in this [i. e. in communion with the Roman Church] the tradition of the Apostles has ever been preserved by those on every side. (Adv. Haereses, III)

During the 464 years between the accession of Constantine (323) and the Seventh General Council (787), the whole or part of the Eastern episcopate lived in schism for approximately two hundred and three years: namely from the Council of Sardica (343) to St. John Chrysostom (389), 55 years; owing to Chrysostom's condemnation (404-415), 11 years; owing to Acadius and the Henoticon edict (484-519), 35 years; total, 203 years (Duchesne). They do, however, claim doctrinal connection with the Apostles, sufficient to their mind to stamp them with the mark of Apostolicity.

The Anglican continuity claim

The Anglican High-Church party asserts its continuity with the pre-Reformation Church in England, and through it with the Catholic Church of Christ. "At the Reformation we but washed our face" is a favourite Anglican saying.

Of all the Churches now separated from Rome, none has a more distinctly Roman origin than the Church of England. It has often been claimed that St. Paul, or some other Apostle, evangelized the Britons. It is certain, however, that whenever Welsh annals mention the introduction of Christianity into the island, invariably they conduct the reader to Rome.

In the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 136) we read that "Pope Eleutherius received a letter from Lucius, King of Britain, that he might be made a Christian by his orders." The incident is told again and again by the Venerable Bede; it is found in the Book of Llandaff, as well as in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; it is accepted by French, Swiss, German chroniclers, together with the home authorities Fabius, Henry of Huntingdon, William of Malmesbury, and Giraldus Cambrensis.

The Saxon invasion swept the British Church out of existence wherever it penetrated, and drove the British Christians to the western borders of the island, or across the sea into Armorica, now French Brittany. No attempt at converting their conquerors was ever made by the conquered. Rome once more stepped in. The missionaries sent by Gregory the Great converted and baptized King Ethelbert of Kent, with thousands of his subjects. In 597 Augustine was made Primate over all England, and his successors, down to the Reformation, have ever received from Rome the pallium, the symbol of super-episcopal authority. The Anglo-Saxon hierarchy was thoroughly Roman in its origin, in its faith and practice, in its obedience and affection; witness every page in Bede's "Ecclesiastical History". A like Roman spirit animated the nation. Among the saints recognized by the Church are twenty-three kings and sixty queens, princes, or princesses of the different Anglo-Saxon dynasties, reckoned from the seventh to the eleventh century. Ten of the Saxon kings made the journey to the tomb of St. Peter, and his successor, in Rome. Anglo-Saxon pilgrims formed quite a colony in proximity to the Vatican, where the local topography (Borgo, Sassia, Vicus Saxonum) still recalls their memory. There was an English school in Rome, founded by King Ine of Wessex and Pope Gregory II (715-731), and supported by the Romescot, or Peter's-pence, paid yearly by every Wessex family. The Romescot was made obligatory by Edward the Confessor, on every monastery and household in possession of land or cattle to the yearly value of thirty pence.

The Norman Conquest (1066) wrought no change in the religion of England. St. Anselm of Canterbury (1093-1109) testified to the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff in his writings (in Matthew 16) and by his acts. When pressed to surrender his right of appeal to Rome, he answered the king in court: You wish me to swear never, on any account, to appeal in England to Blessed Peter or his Vicar; this, I say, ought not to be commanded by you, who are a Christian, for to swear this is to abjure Blessed Peter; he who abjures Blessed Peter undoubtedly abjures Christ, who made him Prince over his Church. St. Thomas Becket shed his blood in defence of the liberties of the Church against the encroachments of the Norman king (1170). Grosseteste, in the thirteenth century, writes more forcibly on the Pope's authority over the whole Church than any other ancient English bishop, although he resisted an ill-advised appointment to a canonry made by the Pope. In the fourteen century Duns Scotus teaches at Oxford "that they are excommunicated as heretics who teach or hold anything different from what the Roman Church holds or teaches." In 1411 the English bishops at the Synod of London condemn Wycliffe's proposition "that it is not of necessity to salvation to hold that the Roman Church is supreme among the Churches." In 1535 Blessed John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, is put to death for upholding against Henry VIII the Pope's supremacy over the English Church. The most striking piece of evidence is the working of the oath taken by archbishops before entering into office: "I, Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury, from this hour forward, will be faithful and obedient to St. Peter, to the Holy Apostolic Roman Church, to my Lord Pope Celestine, and his successors canonically succeeding...I will, saving my order, give aid to defend and to maintain against every man the primacy of the Roman Church and the royalty of St. Peter. I will visit the threshold of the Apostles every three years, either in person or by my deputy, unless I be absolved by apostolic dispensation...So help me God and these holy Gospels." (Wilkins, Concilia Angliae, II, 199).

Chief Justice Bracton (1260) lays down the civil law of this country thus: "It is to be noted concerning the jurisdiction of superior and inferior courts, that in the first place as the Lord Pope has ordinary jurisdiction over all in spirituals, so the king has, in the realm, in temporals." The line of demarcation between things spiritual and temporal is in many cases blurred and uncertain; the two powers often overlap, and conflicts are unavoidable. During five hundred years such conflicts were frequent. Their very recurrence, however, proves that England acknowledged the papal supremacy, for it requires two to make a quarrel. The complaint of one side was always that the other encroached upon its rights. Henry VIII himself, in 1533, still pleaded in the Roman Courts for a divorce. Had he succeeded, the supremacy of the Pope would not have found a more strenuous defender. It was only after his failure that he questioned the authority of the tribunal to which he had himself appealed. In 1534 he was, by Act of Parliament, made the Supreme Head of the English Church. The bishops, instead of swearing allegiance to the Pope, now swore allegiance to the King, without any saving clause. Blessed John Fisher was the only bishop who refused to take the new oath; his martyrdom is the first witness to the breach of continuity between the old English and the new Anglican Church. Heresy stepped in to widen the breach.

The Thirty-nine Articles teach the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone, deny purgatory, reduce the seven sacraments to two, insist on the fallibility of the Church, establish the king's supremacy, and deny the pope's jurisdiction in England. Mass was abolished, and the Real Presence; the form of ordination was so altered to suit the new views on the priesthood that it became ineffective, and the succession of priests failed as well as the succession of bishops. (See ANGLICAN ORDERS.) Is it possible to imagine that the framers of such vital alternations thought of "continuing" the existing Church? When the hierarchical framework is destroyed, when the doctrinal foundation is removed, when every stone of the edifice is freely rearranged to suit individual tastes, then there is no continuity, but collapse. The old façade of Battle Abbey still stands, also parts of the outer wall, and one faces a stately, newish, comfortable mansion; green lawns and shrubs hide old foundations of church and cloisters; the monks' scriptorium and storerooms still stand to sadden the visitor's mood. Of the abbey of 1538, the abbey of 1906 only keeps the mask, the diminished sculptures and the stones--a fitting image of the old Church and the new.

Dr. James Gairdner, whose "History of the English Church in the 16th Century" lays bare the essentially Protestant spirit of the English Reformation, in a letter on "Continuity" (reproduced in the Tablet, 20 January, 1906), shifts the controversy from historical to doctrinal ground. "If the country," he says, "still contained a community of Christians--that is to say, of real believers in the great gospel of salvation, men who still accepted the old creeds, and had no doubt Christ died to save them--then the Church of England remained the same as before. The old system was preserved, in fact all that was really essential to it, and as regards doctrine nothing was taken away except some doubtful scholastic propositions."

LDS NPOV Rewrite

I have done a major rewrite of the LDS section. I believe that it is now NPOV, and would appreciate comments from anyone who still has problems with the text. If I don't hear anything in a while, I will remove the POV tag. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes to the LDS section. First, the NPOV tag was added anonymously on 5 March 2006 by 202.1.165.40 with no discussion on the discussion page or any comment on the change itself. Secondly, the changes made to supposedly "correct" the NPOV were not relevant to any NPOV issue and greatly confused the section. Some comments were erroneous, some were irrelevant, and the text contained spelling errors. If there is an actual NPOV issue and not just vandalism, let's discuss it and correct it properly. Bhludzin 05:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the LDS section is too long and has much irrelevant material. The LDS position could be summed up much more succinctly by saying that 1) we believe that Peter & the apostles were given the apostolic keys by Christ; 2) at some point (probably around the time that the original 12 were all martyred/died) the succession was broken due to changes in doctrine (LDS belief in Great Apostasy) and improper transmission of the keys; 3) Peter, James, and John as corporal beings appeared to Joseph Smith and restored to him the original apostolic keys given to them; 4) all licensed members of the priesthood (most male Mormons over age 12) can trace their ordination in an unbroken line ("Priesthood Line of Authority") to Joseph Smith, and hence to Peter and Christ (as we believe). #3 is somewhat oversimplified because, according to our understanding, Peter, James, & John (& thence the other apostles) received some of their authority not from Christ directly but from Moses and Elijah on the Mt. of Transfiguration, and Joseph Smith likewise received the same authority from Moses and Elijah in the same manner as he received it from Peter, James, & John.

Jehovah's Witnesses

What is the point of the laconic final section? It seems like a bunch of unsupported assertions rather irrelevant to the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lostcaesar (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 June 2006.

Well, the assertions aren't irrelevant, as they explain why JW's reject this doctrine. To see whether they're supported, one would have to investigate the references. Assuming the references confirm that the JW's make these claims, they're fine. One reason this might be worth including is because the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is a significant challenge to the JW's, Mormons, and any other denomination that has deliberately made a complete break with the historic church. Wesley 16:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the bulleted text is in stark contrast to the rest of the article; I am altering it to paragraph-style text. I will leave the citations to Reasoning from the Scriptures, although they themselves seem unsupported. Jasoncpetty 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wesley is missing the big picture here, Jehovah's Witnesses very much do believe in the Protestant slant of apostolic succession. While not giving face value to that term (to avoid being compared to papal ruling class), their ruling class is the Governing Body of about 12 or so men that in practice exercise the same ruling authority as the first century apostles. Their justification for broken linage is similar with other Protestants in that they claim "restored truth." This entire heading needs to be corrected to remove bias or entirely removed.

I reverted the last two edits because they really need source material. I have never heard of the JW's governing body refered to as a form of apostolic succession.George 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Anglican orders

I wonder if some supporting documentation can be found for this anonymous addition regarding Anglican orders?

The Reply of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York (1896) effectively demolished avery one of Leo's arguments and pointed out that his own arguments to nullify Anglican Orders nullified his own. The vote about Anglican Orders was reported as 4 against, 2 in favor and 2 abstentions, but this was a lie: it was a tie broken by the vote of the Pope as revealed when the Vatican Archives were opened. Duschene the French church historian and the Italian Jesuit theologian, two members of the Papal Commission to investigate the validity of Anglican Orders, warned the Pope that a decision against validity was a "Galileo Case."

Wesley 16:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternative lines of succession

I reverted the rather lengthy parenthetical statement querying why Anglicans might be interested in establishing alternative lines of succession. My thoughts are that by "adding-in" a recognised line, combined with the changes to ordinals could in future lead to a "way around" Apostolicae Curae, neither "side" would have to admit that they were previously in the wrong, but RCs could recognise Anglican orders as being valid. However, I can't think of an encyclopaedic way of phrasing this. David Underdown 15:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Historic episcopate

...seems to cover much the same ground as this article. Time for a merge? TSP 10:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Apostolic Succession: A Roman Invention or Divine Institution?

No, this link does not belong here. It's a Geocities page, for crying out loud; someone's personal webspace. I actually agree with it, but that doesn't matter. This is an essay intended to prove a point, not a neutral analysis of the relevant sources by a noted scholar. I have no idea who this Adam S. Miller is or what a "Tower of David Ministry" might be, or why his opinions are important to the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - respectfully. Many external links are to articles that attempt to or "intended to prove a point." What's wrong with that? And where is stated in Wikipedia policy that the purpose of such links is only to provide "a neutral analysis of the relevant sources by a noted scholar?" I dont think such a restriction exists. As for Mr. Miller's "opinions," they are most certainly in accord with Catholic teaching in this area. And to that extent, they are indeed important and very relevant to this article. Delta x 03:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:EL and WP:RS. We don't know who this guy is, we don't know what he or "Tower of David Ministry" represents, we don't know his qualifications. He's not a reliable source. And there's nothing about this that makes it a particularly desireable link -- it doesn't describe, on an official level, the POV of any notable group. It represents a POV, so it's not a neutral source of information not included in the article, which would qualify it regardless of the above. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record: Although I do agree with the substance of Mr. Miller's article, I do not however, agree with his interpratation of the Churches oft misunderstood teaching regarding "no salvation outside the Church" or Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Delta x 04:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read the site in detail, but this again doesn't matter. I only mentioned that I agree with so you knew I wasn't arguing against including the link on ideological grounds. I assumed you generally agreed with it or you would not have added it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's just let this one ride. I found an alternate source; an article entitled "Scott Hahn on the Papacy"[1] which deals with the office of the the Papacy vis-à-vis the Dynastic Succession in the Old Testament( see Isaiah 22:15-24 ). Awareness of this concept of Dynastic succession will, I believe, provide the reader with important (if not essential) background/contextual information needed for a much fuller understanding and appreciation of the idea of apostolic succession. Agreed? Delta x 07:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As a reference, the answers to TCC's questions about "who this Adam S. Miller is or what a 'Tower of David Ministry' might be," can be found here at the Tower of David Ministry homepage, which is a lay apostolate founded by Mr. Miller. And here is an article from Catholic Answers explaining just exactly WHAT IS THE LAY APOSTOLATE? cf.[2] I understand of course, that linking to a particular one of these lay apostolate’s, despite whatever other value it might have for a given article, is not always appropriate, and may, in some instances, even be a violation of Wikipedia guidelines/policies. Delta x 22:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand about the "lay apostolate". In this particular case, how is it any different from "random Catholic guy with a webpage"? Not to be rude, but that's really the issue here. On the subject of the article itself we are not really in disagreement. Your newer link appears perfectly acceptable IMO, as it's an article written by a prominent, recognized Catholic author and can therefore be presumed a reliable source. (I do hope the site has permission to publish it, and so it won;t be going away anytime soon.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In order for me to respond adequately to your question, I'm afraid you'll just have to wait until I finish writing my article entitled Random Catholic Guy with a Webpage! Delta x 04:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, I think I have one or two good cites for that.... TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Great! Now I've got my external links section! Delta x 06:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church in lead section

(from history) 05:39 Apostolic Succession (diff; hist) . . Csernica (Talk | contribs) (rv and wik. "Universal" is a poor gloss for "Catholic". The link explains it. "Catholic Church" is not a synonym for the organization headed by the Pope of Rome.)

I agree that it is not ideal. However I disagree with the current wording. The lead section should be straightforward and guide a general reader into the article without relying on clicking any links. A general reader should be expected to know nothing about Apostolic Succession; and therefore little about Catholic ecclesiology)

It is absolutely right to link to One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church

One point I feel quite strongly about, is that the last sentence should say the Catholic Church, not a Catholic Church. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That may well be the better wording, but we may need to collect a consensus on it. I'm also worried that it may not be entirely right. The Anglican communion, for example, considers itself a Catholic church, which is to say a local church possessing the attribute of catholicity, if I understand their position correctly. (I might not.)

The ambiguity of the word "Catholic" in your post means I don't know quite what you're saying. Do you mean Roman Catholic theology, or those elements of theology which churches that consider themselves Catholic tend to share? TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Ahh, thanks for explaining, Csernica/TCC. I wasn't aware of the Anglican preference for "a Catholic church." Do you know where I can read more about that?
2. By the word "Catholic" I was not referring to theology used by a communion, but the membership of the local church in the church instituted by God. I think by including the piped link in your edit, you have hit the nail on the head. To make it plain to readers that the meaning and link differ from the link earlier in the paragraph, I propose not piping it, thus:

In any event, all these communions recognize Apostolic Succession as a determining criterion of a particular group's legitimacy as part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism#Catholic and Reformed does a reasonably good job of explaining the issue. As with many other issues in Anglicanism there is a range of acceptable opinion, so nailing down a definitive answer isn't easy. There is, in any event, a sizeable faction that considers itself Catholic.

But I might even say the same is true within Eastern Orthodoxy. Each local church, both on the national level and on the level of the individual diocese, is a local catholic church. It's not actually incorrect to also say each one is the Catholic Church, but unless the reader already knows what is meant by that I think it can lead to confusion.

I agree that not piping the link would be good. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church reference

Minor alteration: In the list of churches I altered the "Catholic Church" reference to "Roman Catholic Church." I assume the reason for omitting "Roman" here was not to alienate the Eastern rites but since many churches consider themselves part of the catholic Church using this term to refer to one church in such a formal listing can be potentially offensive. I realize that "Catholic Church" is commonly used in many informal settings but it seems we should be careful in this setting. --Mcorazao 04:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the Eastern Rites of the Church are part of the "Catholic Church." But Not the "ROMAN" Catholic Church. The Word "Roman" describes the Rite (Latin-Rite), which the other churches are NOT part of therefore, the appropriate term to use is :CATHOLIC CHURCH (including its rites). Jyoz

Sorry, I had not kept checking for a response and missed the fact that one had been entered.

Obviously there is a debate here on the "right" terminology but let me state my opinion.

• The "Catholic" has never been uniquely claimed by the Church of Rome. The fact that in Western countries the term is, by default, interpreted to refer to that communion is a matter of the power of that Church for the last millenium but the so-called Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox communions have never given up their right to use this name. There is no objective reason to say that they are not entitled to it (any more than it is objectively correct to say that the Church of Rome is not Orthodox).
• It is common in many scholarly circles to use "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to the entire communion, "Latin Rite" to refer to those directly under the supervision of Rome, and "Eastern Rite" for the local churches in the East. I realize that many of this communion do not like this nomenclature but

1. There is no universally accepted nomenclature.
2. The Pope does accept this nomenclature although it is not preferred.

• Although I certainly agree that Wikipedia should attempt to name institutions based on the preferences of those institutions, Wikipedia should draw the line at deliberately allowing POV. In this case there are multiple institutions that do and have from the beginning called themselves the "Catholic Church" so it is POV to favor one over the other. "Roman Catholic", "Eastern Orthodox", etc. are generally accepted by scholars as "neutral" terms. Granted these are not universally accepted but they have the advantage that they are widely accepted (even to a limited extent in those institutions) and they are moderately neutral (there are no terms that are completely neutral).

--Mcorazao 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)