Refuting Apostolic Succession

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone. How does one refute the idea of apostolic succession? A friend of mine said that Paul and other disciples ordained other men such as St. Ignatius and then St. Ignatius in turn ordained others. How is one to respond to such claims of apostolic succession? Is it not in direct conflict with the Great Apostasy?

[Gabelma]

Hi everyone. How does one refute the idea of apostolic succession? A friend of mine said that Paul and other disciples ordained other men such as St. Ignatius and then St. Ignatius in turn ordained others. How is one to respond to such claims of apostolic succession? Is it not in direct conflict with the Great Apostasy?

yes it is - I cant remember exact details but there was a period when there were 4 popes at once I seem to remember its where the Orthodox Churches come from. Maybe someone can confirm it

-Charley

[Doctor Steuss]

Hi everyone. How does one refute the idea of apostolic succession? A friend of mine said that Paul and other disciples ordained other men such as St. Ignatius and then St. Ignatius in turn ordained others. How is one to respond to such claims of apostolic succession? Is it not in direct conflict with the Great Apostasy?

Simple answer; were Ignatius, et.al. ordained to be apostles?

[snipe123]

Hi everyone. How does one refute the idea of apostolic succession? A friend of mine said that Paul and other disciples ordained other men such as St. Ignatius and then St. Ignatius in turn ordained others. How is one to respond to such claims of apostolic succession? Is it not in direct conflict with the Great Apostasy?

Ignatius was bishop of Antioch, not an apostle...You can read his own words here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.i.html

and you can read more about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

This should be more than enough to demonstrate that he was not an apostle and that the office of bishop was inferior to the apostlship...

For good articles on the more general topic of the apostasy, follow this link: www.fairlds.org/apol/ai014.html

[Doctor Steuss]

Just a quick thought on “debunking” the beliefs of others. We must be careful while trying to support our own beliefs that we do not tear down those of others. In “debunking” apostolic succession, we might not necessarily show support for an apostasy and show the LDS viewpoint to be correct. Instead we might simply destroy someone else’s belief in G-d.

Often, those who are influenced by writings that “debunk” a particular religion don’t necessarily embrace a new religion. Instead they become agnostics or atheists. In supporting our own beliefs we need to be careful to not take upon ourselves the tactics that anti-Mormons (or anti-anythings) use. One does not always have to attack in order to defend.

Maintaining your own belief does not necessitate that you destroy someone else's in the process.

*Stepping off soapbox, and now off to be a hypocrite until I can take my own words to heart.*

[Old Tex]

Hi everyone. How does one refute the idea of apostolic succession? A friend of mine said that Paul and other disciples ordained other men such as St. Ignatius and then St. Ignatius in turn ordained others. How is one to respond to such claims of apostolic succession? Is it not in direct conflict with the Great Apostasy?

The question here would be, did Paul give Ignatius any Priesthood "keys" and if so, what were they"? If Ignatius was ordained to the office of a Bishop he only has authority to preside in the office of a Bishop.

There is no record of Peter ordaining another person to the Presidency of the Church and passing the keys of that office to such a person. Another indication that he didn't pass the keys to the Priesthood to anyone else is that he evidently still held them in order to pass them to Joseph Smith.

A stake president does not have the authority to ordain another stake president, and a Bishop does not have the authority to ordain another Bishop. When the Apostles were killed there were still some stake presidents (by whatever name) and some Bishops who held the keys to work in the area of their authorithy, but when they died no one held the keys to the Priesthood, and without the proper keys no more ordinations can be done, and eventially there is no more Priesthood. Of course, men may claim to hold the Priesthood and officiate in a man made church, but their doctnine will be the doctrine of men, mingled with scripture.

So the question is not really if Paul ordained anyone or not. Of course he did. But they only had authority to function in the capacity in which they were ordained and they could only ordain someone to a lower office than they themselves held. One can see that the Priesthood, like a light bulb, will grow dimmer and dimmer as each Priesthood holder dies, until it goes out.

[MadHatter]

It is my own personal opinion that Ignatius actually did hold the keys to the Aaronic Priesthood, but not that of the MP. The first position of POPE and the reason they named it as such, was actually PAPA which is a Latin abbreviation for "Father of Fathers" Which later turned to POPE. which is a position created by the Bishops of the Catholic church.

And eventually the Aaronic priesthood was lost (except for the Levite direct decendants) because of wickedness, and perverting of the doctrined and ordinances.

[Old Tex]

It is my own personal opinion that Ignatius actually did hold the keys to the Aaronic Priesthood, but not that of the MP. The first position of POPE and the reason they named it as such, was actually PAPA which is a Latin abbreviation for "Father of Fathers" Which later turned to POPE. which is a position created by the Bishops of the Catholic church.

And eventually the Aaronic priesthood was lost (except for the Levite direct decendants) because of wickedness, and perverting of the doctrined and ordinances.

You may well be correct on this, Hat. And it may have been a number of causes. I think we agree that whatever the cause or causes, the Priesthood was gone within two or three generations after the death of the Apostles.

[a-train]

Apostolic Succession is not to be refuted. It is true. The matter isn't whether it was done, but whether it came down to modern times through an unbroken chain.

-a-train

[AnthonyB]

There is more than 1 church which claims apostolic succession. It isn't just the Roman Catholic church. A number of other churches have a reasonable case to be in apostolic succession, the Orthodox church has 6 of the great sees of Christiandom, the Anglican still maintain that they are in apostolic succession, the Assyrian Church (although not ascribing to Chalcedon.)

[MadHatter]

The probem is that it's a proven fact that the order of Bishop was given to Ignatius of Antioch, but his order was still a lesser order of priesthood authority, they cannot be in "apostolic sucession" because an apostle did not form thier church. also they have never carried forth the office of Apostle nor did they recieve the authority.

[AnthonyB]

The probem is that it's a proven fact that the order of Bishop was given to Ignatius of Antioch, but his order was still a lesser order of priesthood authority, they cannot be in "apostolic sucession" because an apostle did not form thier church. also they have never carried forth the office of Apostle nor did they recieve the authority.

It is I think a problem of differing definitions. (If my LDS definitions are wrong, hopefully you can still grasp the difference in the words meaning.)

Apostle:

1)Some people take it to mean the 12 plus Paul. Those called directly by Jesus to be apostles.

2)Some people use the word for anyone who founds churches.

3)LDS appear to me to use it as rung in a heirechial order, restored by Jesus.

Apostolic Succession:

1) Trad christians mean that the people in question succeded the apostles, (ie using the first definition above) by the laying on of hands and passing on the leadership of the church from them, that the line of appointed leaders can be traced back to the apostles.

2) LDS mean passing on an actual rank of apostle, inside their heirechy of spiritual offices.

[snipe123]

<div class='quotemain'>

The probem is that it's a proven fact that the order of Bishop was given to Ignatius of Antioch, but his order was still a lesser order of priesthood authority, they cannot be in "apostolic sucession" because an apostle did not form thier church. also they have never carried forth the office of Apostle nor did they recieve the authority.

It is I think a problem of differing definitions. (If my LDS definitions are wrong, hopefully you can still grasp the difference in the words meaning.)

Apostle:

1)Some people take it to mean the 12 plus Paul. Those called directly by Jesus to be apostles.

2)Some people use the word for anyone who founds churches.

3)LDS appear to me to use it as rung in a heirechial order, restored by Jesus.

Apostolic Succession:

1) Trad christians mean that the people in question succeded the apostles, (ie using the first definition above) by the laying on of hands and passing on the leadership of the church from them, that the line of appointed leaders can be traced back to the apostles.

2) LDS mean passing on an actual rank of apostle, inside their heirechy of spiritual offices.

LDS believe that an apostle must be called of God and then set apart or ordained to that calling by the those who are in authority to lay hands upon them and confer that same authority...such as when a replacement for Judas was ordained in Acts...The Apostleship is an office within the Priesthood that is higher than the calling of the bishop...An apostle is an apostle, not a bishop and not a pope, (or "father of fathers" or one might say "bishop of bishops").