Zobel said:

---

You hold fast to what was passed down, by word or by letter.

---

So what happens when different churches are established and have different words passed down?

This (the schism) all comes down to authority. Who (or what) is ultimately the authority of the church? The bread was just a symptom of this authority battle.

Faithful Ag said:

---

That's why it is called Apostolic Succession. There were not different churches with different beliefs. There was one Church with different locations. The Church has always been where the deposit of the faith was received and guarded and handed (passed) down. There have always been the passer and the receiver who then guards and becomes the passer. This was done through the apostles and then the Bishops. Someone planting a church somewhere is missing this lineage, authority, and protection from error which lends itself to heterodox teachings and beliefs.

---

Thank you for your response and perspective.

What is your take on the idea of Apostolic Succession as it played out after the Edict of Milan? I am getting at the idea that Roman Emperors eventually had some sway in who was put into the Bishop ranks. If I have it correct in the East, in the Byzantine Period, the Emperor basically had to confirm the Patriarchs. In the West, there was the eventual Investiture Controversy.

Faithful Ag said:

---

The same cannot be said of Protestant Christians. Protestants are all over the map on pretty much everything and cannot agree on even some of the most fundamental Christian teachings.

---

This is a little fair, but also not in the sense that it just lumps together any "Christian" who is not a member of the RC or EO Church. The Protestants were led by the likes of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Tyndale, Owen, Knox, etc. with the forerunner to all this being Wycliffe.

Calvinism was the predominantly followed tradition really until the 2nd Great Awakening when people embraced the Arminian view of free will and a more optimistic view of human nature. I call that liberalism.

Quote:

---

So what happens when different churches are established and have different words passed down?

---

well, there weren't different churches established, with different passdowns. just one deposit of faith.

Quote:

---

This (the schism) all comes down to authority. Who (or what) is ultimately the authority of the church? The bread was just a symptom of this authority battle.

---

it isn't as simple as that, unfortunately. the short version is that there were two things going on - one an desire for conformance, the other a move to reform. they were related.

the desire for conformance due to geopolitical realities is not new and has always been "a thing" in Christendom. this is a driving factor behind the first ecumenical council, for example - many of the councils, actually. thats why many of them were called by emperors. in a time where the aim of the state, the philosophical concept of the Good, was derived from the faith of the people having a misalignment was a huge problem. the issue in the ~8th century was that the overarching empire fell, and the desire for conformance became local (within the Carolingian empire, for example). So you had this conforming pressure that wasn't unified. it forced conformance and change on only one part of the church. since it was only one part, the church as a whole did not resist (or adopt).

secondly, and really also a consequence of the collapse of the roman empire, was the local subjugation of a bishopric to the local feudal lord in the west. the same kind of desire for control was there, but at the local level if plays out more in terms of corruption than in control. this lead to a big issue with simony, the purchase of a bishopric, because it was connected to power and wealth. the reaction to this was a desire to fix it, and the only way to "fix" a bishop is with some higher authority. there is no such higher authority in a singular way in the east - you can only get several bishops together collectively to depose a bishop.

both of these lead to a centralizing movement, and that is what you got - around the bishop of rome. this centralizing became stronger and stronger, until it was turned against the east, which resisted it in both paths. it resisted the conformance at odds with tradition (the filioque, unleavened bread) and resisted the centralizing power in the papacy.

together they lead to the schism.

the thing is, though, we have the benefit of a historical vantage point in a way people in earlier centuries did not. unlike the carolingian court, we know that the filioque was novel - they apparently seemed genuinely convinced it was authentic and the east had changed it. we know that the east and west both used to cross themselves the same way. we know that both east and west used leavened bread. and so on.

we can only be accountable for our own decisions, based on our own inheritance, not for those of the past.

the patriarch isn't like a pope though. if you're thinking 'the emperor confirmed the patriarch so he controlled the church' in the western model you're making a bad assumption.

in the orthodox church, every bishop has the authority that only the pope of rome does in roman catholicism.

Thanks for the details as always.

I am tracking with the Patriarchs, however am not connecting the dots on how Apostolic Succession stays "pure" if the Emperor has sway or is confirming who is ordained and who is taken out of their rank at times.

Quote:

---

the desire for conformance due to geopolitical realities is not new and has always been "a thing" in Christendom. this is a driving factor behind the first ecumenical council, for example - many of the councils, actually. thats why many of them were called by emperors. in a time where the aim of the state, the philosophical concept of the Good, was derived from the faith of the people having a misalignment was a huge problem. the issue in the ~8th century was that the overarching empire fell, and the desire for conformance became local (within the Carolingian empire, for example). So you had this conforming pressure that wasn't unified. it forced conformance and change on only one part of the church. since it was only one part, the church as a whole did not resist (or adopt).

secondly, and really also a consequence of the collapse of the roman empire, was the local subjugation of a bishopric to the local feudal lord in the west. the same kind of desire for control was there, but at the local level if plays out more in terms of corruption than in control. this lead to a big issue with simony, the purchase of a bishopric, because it was connected to power and wealth. the reaction to this was a desire to fix it, and the only way to "fix" a bishop is with some higher authority. there is no such higher authority in a singular way in the east - you can only get several bishops together collectively to depose a bishop.

both of these lead to a centralizing movement, and that is what you got - around the bishop of rome. this centralizing became stronger and stronger, until it was turned against the east, which resisted it in both paths. it resisted the conformance at odds with tradition (the filioque, unleavened bread) and resisted the centralizing power in the papacy.

---

For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, [the Antichrist] will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God. For as the kingdoms before this were destroyed, for example, that of the Medes by the Babylonians, that of the Babylonians by the Persians, that of the Persians by the Macedonians, that of the Macedonians by the Romans: so will this also be by the Antichrist, and he by Christ, and it will no longer withhold. And these things Daniel delivered to us with great clearness.
-Chrysostom, Homily 4 on Second Thessalonians

you're thinking about the emperor like a comic book despot. he wasn't. there were several "power centers" in the eastern roman empire, and the imperial throne was just one. one was the merchant class, which remained powerful even into the ottoman days. another was the church and clerical class, another was the aristocracy, another the monastics, and then of course the people.

there are many examples of bad emperors and bad patriarchs. but that doesn't change the church, because they aren't the church. the patriarch can say whatever, but he can't depose a bishop unilaterally. the monasteries will resist the changes, the people will maintain their traditions.

the emperor can't depose a bishop, either. he can kill him or exile him, but he has no authority to depose him. the emperor's validity itself is dependent on the church to coronate him, in the pre-secular era. this is why it was such a deal for Charlemagne to be coronated by the pope of rome - it granted him imperial legitimacy in a extremely powerful way.

for example - St Ambrose wrote to emperor Valentinian -

Quote:

---

If it were a civil cause the right of reply would be reserved for the opposing party; it is a religious cause, and I the bishop make a claim...Certainly if anything else is decreed, we bishops cannot contentedly suffer it and take no notice; you indeed may come to the church, but will find either no priest there, or one who will resist you.

---

Apostolic succession is the direct line of succession of the bishops (protectors of the faith) going back to the original apostles. The lineage can be traced and verified through the unbroken list that is known and kept by the church. The Church has always been visible through her Bishops and something a new Christian would be able to find and we see this evidenced in the Bible and in the early Church fathers. When faced with heresy or novel teachings the controversy was settled by the leaders of the visible, authoritative church made known through this apostolic lineage through the laying on of hands.

The reformers you listed all had one thing in common…none of them could lay claim to being a successor of the apostles. Some were priests, but being a priest is not the same as being a bishop. The reformers might like to claim they were returning to the teachings of the apostles and/or church fathers, or that they were restoring lost teachings, or reforming errors of the church…but every single one of the reformers was lacking apostolic succession and authority (this includes Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Tyndale, Owen, Knox, etc., and Wycliffe). Without having rightful authority, these men grasped on and held to the only remaining authority possible, Sola Scriptura. The problem with Sola Scriptura is the various interpretations that well-meaning Christians can have for important theological doctrines with no rightful authority to serve as the protector of doctrine and arbiter of the faith. Immediately these reformers began disagreeing with each other on fundamental, important doctrines while defending their personal position using "Sola Scriptura". Same Scriptura with many different interpretations.

Even after the Great Schism between the East and the West in 1054, the Christian beliefs of the EO and RCC are very, very similar with the differences being nuanced and almost indistinguishable. We are 1,000 years removed from our unfortunate divide but even today we can count on one hand the issues we might quibble about and I think when properly understood the only real issue is the Pope. (1. Papacy 2. Filioque 3. leaven/unleaven bread 4. Immaculate conception vs. Mary never committed personal sin). The Divine Liturgy of the East is superior in my view when compared to today's Mass (eta: superior in beauty/presentation but both are equal in that Christ makes himself present in the Eucharist) , and much more experiential and to representative of ancient Christianity. There is nothing my EO brothers believe that I cannot agree with to a very large degree, even when it comes to the question of the Bishops and Papacy.

Finally, Apostolic Succession does not imply that these men were not sometimes sinners and scoundrels, or that they were placed into their positions through the most pious or perfect processes. Some of them were Saints, some of them were scoundrels, all of them were sinners. What Apostolic Succession does mean is that the Holy Spirit worked through these men to ensure that the faith was preserved and protected from error as it was handed down from generation to generation. We see that today in the EO churches, and we see that today in the RCC where our beliefs and our faith comes to us through the ages.

Each of us was born into a different situation and through our families and upbringing we have our worldview and faith traditions. Most of us were born into our paradigm, and it can be very difficult to see the world through a new or different paradigm. My point is simply that today's Apostolic Christians (EO and Catholic) have a completely different perspective than Protestant Christians. We really are speaking two completely different languages even though we use the same words because our words often hold different meanings.

St. Ignatius of Antioch:

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

Jesus didn't teach cannibalism. The sacraments are not the actual body and blood of Jesus. You don't get Jesus living in by you eating Him. Otherwise you're saying your body turns his body into waste. Which imo is highly sacrilegious.

John 6: 51-59.

That's really a tough one to get around. There seems to be other scripture that confirms or denys this passage. Then you have the early Church.

Jesus does say "This is My Body....This is My Blood."

He never qualifies it. Never explains exactly what this means. Rome attempts to box in what is truly a Mystery. That parts their mistake, but the general understanding that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus is correct. That's truly the predominant historical view of the Christian Church.

Even Calvin acknowledged this to be correct. He just argued (incorrectly) it was only the "spiritual Jesus" in the bread/wine.

Why did the pagans accuse Christians of cannibalism?

Zobel said:

---

Why did the pagans accuse Christians of cannibalism?

---

Because Jesus taught them to eat his flesh and drink his blood. They didn't understand the ins and outs of sacramentology and that the Christians were just eating bread and drinking wine.

"just"?

Zobel said:

---

"just"?

---

If they witnessed what they were eating and drinking, their fears would have been relieved. Again, they did not understand Christian sacramentology.

Quote:

---

And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.

---

St Justin Martyr, First Apology c 155-157 AD.

Zobel said:

---

Why did the pagans accuse Christians of cannibalism?

---

An outside perspective isn't an authority on the inward reality.

The wafers and wine people eat are wafers and wine. You can test them. They aren't flesh and blood. It's not some magic trick that they then become flesh and blood once they enter your body either.

The church is also His body. Should we eat each other? These are typological parables to help explain Heavenly realities that have been abused.

IF your interpretation is that during the last Supper the bread and wine are actually Jesus body and blood you have to also show scripturally that is not a unique event. In similar manner Passover feast was used to REMEMBER the Passover event. Not every Passover were they protecting themselves from death. In similar fashion Jesus asks them to do communion in remembrance, not that everytime sacrament is His flesh and blood.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.

---

St Justin Martyr, First Apology c 155-157 AD.

---

Yes, this may concern pagans until they witness what they are eating and drinking. Not a man, but bread and wine. Just like today. If an atheist hears people within a church are eating a man inside, they would call the authorities. But the police wouldn't charge anyone because, as unbelievers, they only see bread and wine.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

IF your interpretation is that during the last Supper the bread and wine are actually Jesus body and blood you have to also show scripturally that is not a unique event. In similar manner Passover feast was used to REMEMBER the Passover event. Not every Passover were they protecting themselves from death. In similar fashion Jesus asks them to do communion in remembrance, not that everytime sacrament is His flesh and blood.

---

That's a good point. Typically when you "remember" someone, they're not there with you, but somewhere else.

It's an irrelevant question because people outside the religion aren't an authority on it. So just because they had a thought doesn't mean it's right. And you can't argue from their ignorance as proof of a modern interpretation.

I don't need to repent for not believing food you bake or buy is the creator of the universe…..

Kind of like when Mosses was on the Mountain the people made a golden calf believing it was the God that saved them.

In the same way you make your food the God that saves you.

Zobel said:

---

Many fathers wrote about this clearly - for example, St Augustine said "what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood."

---

Do you hold all of Augustine's teachings as 100% correct?

The Commonitory of St. Vincent of Lerins

I just try to keep things a bit light from time to time. Augustine is obviously an interesting figure since both the Catholic, Orthodox, and Reformed traditions all cling to him heavily in different ways and also dismiss some of his other teachings or writings.

One example that has come up for me in some of my reading has been the Corinthian Church, which Paul established and ministered to for a year or two. By some historical accounts, Paul left for Ephesus and was already writing letters of correction back to his Corinthian brothers possibly less than 5 years from being with them. To me this outlines just how hard it is to depend on non-Scriptural tradition and it's authority. We surely have to believe that different communities perverted the teachings they received, which is why written scripture must be the anchor that unites the universal church.

If the Corinthian Church, which was established by the apostle that wrote most of the New Testament, can undergo doctrinal struggle so quickly, why are we to believe that this idea of apostolic succession that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches hold to is without error? That tradition is kept pure year over year, etc.?

What do you think of Heiko Oberman's "Tradition I" and "Tradition II". i.e. the Reformers (and the early church) believed in Tradition I in that the universal interpretation of Scripture by the church should be upheld. You should be highly suspect of any "new" teaching being discovered.

As apposed to Tradition II, held by the Roman Catholics, that there is a separate divine source of doctrine alongside Scripture that has equal weight and binds the conscience of Christians to believe.

I don't think the Catholics and Orthodox "dismiss" his teachings or writings. I think they say that the way the reformed people use him is wrong, and selective. Where the Orthodox disagree with him isn't in the body of his work in general, it is in some of the particulars of his polemical writing against Pelagius, and in those specifically are where other saints who lived at the same time (like St John Cassian) wrote against those teachings. You make it out like it is completely arbitrary, and it isn't. If anything, the RCC and Orthodox generally uphold St Augustine, and find minor things to disagree with, while Protestants generally ignore St Augustine and find minor things to agree with.

I've heard this thing about Corinth before, but I think it's a pretty woefully bad argument to make. The structure of it is something like this: if the people who were taught by St Paul had to be corrected already, how could anyone hope to be correct without writing?

It's really a bad argument though. For one thing, it was precisely to those people to whom St Paul said - "I commend you for remembering me in everything and maintaining the traditions just as I passed them on to you." He didn't say "y'all are so fouled up what the heck guys." Yes, he has to correct here, admonish there. My pastor does too, sometimes. How is that an argument against tradition in any way? He was a pastor, correcting his flock. That is ongoing. How does that invalidate the idea of preserving teaching? To me, it affirms it - he was actively maintaining instruction.

Further, who is comparable to the pagans in the church? These people were coming from a radically different framework and worldview. They were actual pagans with zero knowledge of God. What community in former Christendom is like this? Are you confused about whether or not it is ok to sleep with your mother in law?

Ironically, St Paul doesn't correct them about the Eucharist, but instead tells them how proud he is of their keeping that tradition. His corrections are about congregational discipline (or lack thereof), against forming factions, against lawsuits among Christians, tempering Christian freedom with concern toward your brother, not having disorderly worship, not overindulging at the Eucharist, and addressing despair about the resurrection (keep in mind the Resurrection was a wildly difficult thing for pagans of the time to accept). Does he address ANY of the "perversions" the Reformers want to talk about? Are any of these other than the resurrection "doctrinal" matters? Or are they discipline? If anything we see the opposite, that these churches were well-catechized, but struggling with living out the Christian life where it was at odds with basic human nature (factionalism) or their pagan environs.

He also commanded them "You are to imitate me, just as I imitate Christ." To a different formerly pagan community he said - "whatever you have learned or receive or hear or seen in me, practice that" and "follow my example, and carefully observe those who walk according to the pattern we set for you." Imitation is commanded over and over again in the NT. And this imitation, combined with the public deposit of the teachings said among many witnesses (2 Tim 2:2), is how that succession is maintained. The fact that the letters, public teaching, admonishment, and correction were continued in the pattern of St Paul - and continue to this day - is evidence of how robust this actually is. The version you're suggesting is the Apostolic teaching was mostly futile (as the vast majority of them wrote nothing) and the vast majority of Christians who ever lived were strangers to the gospel because of it. Wildly anachronistic, and depressing lack of faith in the Spirit aside.