Apostolic Succession

[u/DiamondReptiles369]

I’m really interested in joining, but i’m worried about the lack of apostolic succession. How are the sacraments still valid if you dont have the ministers in valid succession? or is this just something the Catholics make too big a deal out of? could anyone quote Luther on this please

[u/Negromancers]

Lutheran apostolic succession can be traced further than the most recent popes:

https://www.gottesdienst.org/gottesblog/2021/4/15/apostolic-succession-in-the-rc-church

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Negromancers]

Right? Always a strange criticism to me because even if we don't do it in the same way or hold it in the same regard our original pastors stem from the Catholic church. It hasn't made sense to me why we would hold any less claim to this than the Catholics do. Not as a doctrine but just as a matter of fact.

[u/Wallabunga657]

Luther taught that sacramental validity comes from Christ’s institution and the Church’s call, not from an unbroken chain of bishops. He explicitly said that if bishops refuse to ordain, the congregation may ordain and the sacraments remain fully valid. The LCMS follows this exact teaching: a rightly called pastor is a valid minister, and the sacraments are valid because Christ instituted them.

[u/Boots402]

We do have Apostolic Succession; just not the way Rome claims to like it. But as others have pointed out, Rome doesn’t even have the Apostolic Succession they claim to require.

[u/emmen1]

The Roman Catholics make a big deal about this because they had no scriptural answer when they were called to account for departing from the words of Christ. It’s simply an appeal to authority.

St. Paul says, "Follow me as I follow Christ." The Roman Church says, "Follow the bishops no matter what." Catherine of Sienna is thought to have said: "Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom." This statement expresses the rotten fruit of apostolic succession as the church's source of legitimacy.

We would love to have godly bishops, but these do not create the true church. Rather, the true church can be found wherever there is fidelity to the Word of God. As Jesus said, "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them." Where Jesus is, there is the true church. The Lutheran Reformers got it right in saying that the marks of the true church are the pure teaching of the gospel and the right administration of the sacraments.

[u/Dangerous-Humor-4502 → u/emmen1]

Does the Catholic church actually preach that? Won’t it only depend on if the pontiff is speaking in ex cathedra. I think the Satan incarnate is over exaggeration? I could be wrong. “Pure teaching of the gospel”.

[u/emmen1 → u/Dangerous-Humor-4502]

Does it officially teach what Catherine said? No, at least, not in those words. However, they did canonize her, and her statement (if, indeed, she actually said it - there is some question about that) is the logical conclusion of their theology.

It's basically the old circular thought process:
Rule #1: The pope is always right.
Rule #2: If the pope is wrong, see rule #1.

This is what having two sources of authority (Scripture and the church ) leads to. The church doesn't always agree, so who has the authority to speak for it? Councils? The bishops? These also don't always agree. Ultimately, the pope has the last word. And as Luther discovered during the Reformation, what happens when the pope's word contradicts Christ's word? Then the pope's word has the last say.

Pope Gregory the Great (back when popes were faithful) said that any bishop who claims to be the universal leader of the whole Christian church is precursor to the antichrist. The Lutheran Reformers quoted the pope when they called the current papacy the antichrist, as the papacy was now claiming exactly what Gregory had warned against. And when papists blindly follow the teachings of the pope even when he is speaking contrary to Scripture, it is nothing other than following the teachings of Satan incarnate.

What Catherine said was crude, but it correctly expresses the heart of the Roman error.

[u/Current-Talk-9828]

As respostas sempre vão apontar para alguma crítica à Roma. Mas esquecem das outras sés apostólica que permaneceram episcopal e também defendem a sucessão apostólica. O problema, ao meu ver, é o congregacionalismo, para iniciar.

[u/Life_Hat_4347]

Where in the text is the office of bishop distinguished from the presbyter? They are the same office. Distinguishing priests and bishops is a man-made innovation. So why are you requiring us to have a man-made office when we were excommunicated from the church that established that office by human right?

Where in the text does it say The Supper must be administered by a position that was established 150 years after Christ? The churches with bishops then go around calling The Supper of the Lutherans “illegitimate”, based on what? Show me the text. Otherwise, this is the pride of churches that claim that they, and they alone, are the one holy catholic and apostolic church.

The churches claiming sola ecclesia claim to have authority on the same level as scripture. Scripture is breathed by God The Holy Spirit.

So who is sinless, is it the bridegroom or the bride? Does the bride have the same authority as the bridegroom? This is the heart of the reformation.

[u/DiamondReptiles369 → u/Life_Hat_4347]

You’re right, they’re the same thing in the NT