W
William Putnam
Guest
Scofield said:I apologize Bill, I must have missed it. What does it mean to be apart of the “apostolic church†if the Catholic Church doesn’t have apostles leading it? Couldn’t the claim be made for any church with even the thinnest lines of succession?
I thought you misread me! (I was scratching my head!)
As I understand it, the full title of the Church is:
ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH
It is "catholic" because by the time the term was coined, circa AD 100, the evangelistic efforts of the Church was indeed "universal" in the then known world. It is "apostolic" because her original "charter clergy" were the apostles.
The closest any church, outside of the Catholic Church, who could comes close to claiming apostolicity are the Orthodox Churches. They are in schism from the Catholic Church, but their doctrines and practices are identical (albeit with different terms, names and neuances that do not change the doctrines) and importantly, they have valid holy orders in their ordination. If you were to attend an Eastern Rite Church, say, in Greece, which is "in union with Rome" the Divine Liturgy is exactly the same that of the schismatic Orthodox, which originated with St. John Chsostom, BTW.
And in fact, it would take little for them to return to complete unity with the Western Church - Acknowledgement of the pope in his primacy. (They recognise him as "first among equals" but not in authority over them.)
Other churches, who find themselves originating to an individual who broke away from the Catholic Church, and have broken the line of succession in their ordination rites, in the Catholic opinion, is not apostolic in origin.
You may not agree, I know, but that is off the top of my head in explaining it.
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)