APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
THE BIGGEST SOUL DESTROYING HERESY IN THE WHOLE OF HISTORY?
It is interesting that in the bible leprosy is passed from one person to another, but not Apostolic power. Catholic and Eastern Orthodox bishops are more like spiritual lepers to Protestants than they are Apostles, as like the Pharisees they fulfil the scripture "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition". Such authority is always bogus. Many Protestants believe the ministry of Apostles ended when the original chosen ones died, and thus their ministry was that of those laying the foundations of the original church, backed up by them writing scripture, whereas no one else has.
Spiritual lepers passing on their doctrinal disease one to another
THE 1st EPISTLE OF CLEMENT:
Just as the Orthodox justify many of their evil practices by using the voodoo book Tobit, a book entirely rejected as scripture by the Jews, they also justify the heresy of Apostolic Succession by referring to another dubious book called the Epistle of Clement supposedly written before 70AD but others say 96AD, usurping it over the word of God. They might also justify the heresy of Apostolic Succession with Didache ? As to whether they are both in any case forgeries early or late I do not have enough information. As far as I am aware the heretical Alexandrian text includes The Epistle of Clement as scripture
link:
https://biblehub.com/library/pamphilius/church_history/chapter_xvi_the_epistle_of_clement.htm#1 .
Which some would argue immediately makes the Epistle of Clement heretical not just dubious.
Fake Pope, writes fake epistle, found in the heretical Alexandrian Text as part of scripture. Why the Orthodox use the phoney modern versions not the KJV type Greek.
OVERVIEW:
As I have debated with and spoken to Catholics and Orthodox believers I have become convinced that the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is the most deceptive and destructive heresy ever invented, and is the main heresy that prevents them from obeying God through the bible, when the bible is declared infallible by God, I therefore intend to examine the false doctrine of apostolic succession in depth.
POPES:
Of course this subject is linked also inextricably with the claim there are Popes, and Titular heads of the sacerdotalism churches.
1) Peter was supposedly the first Pope. They dont say if he ever wore a fish head miter.
2) St Linus - First Roman pope,. where the name was simply lifted from 2 Timothy 4:21. (similar forgery of bishops were Onesimus and Stachys). He is laughably supposed to be buried in Vatican City.
3) St Anacletus or (Cletus), a Greek Pope to keep the Byzantines happy. Also laughably buried in Vatican City to "prove" he was real.
4) St Clement I . supposedly the man mentioned in Philippians 4:3, and author of the Epistle of Clement.
So important is this deceptive line of descent of pseudo Popes, so called Pope Aristus, Pope Sixtus (42-125 AD), Pope Pius 1st (died supposedly 154 AD) or Pope Evaristus (30-107 AD) are all supposed to be buried in Vatican City..... along with Saint Peter himself, and Jude (hilarious - the junk they will believe! Credulity is no Faith!)
Also buried in Vatican City is Saint Ignatius of Antioch (35-108) and Saint Martinian (30-67 AD) and his co-fake Saint Processus, helping to provide pseudo-proof that their list of bogus saints is as "real" as their bogus Popes.
Folks - gone are the days when people were so naïve and uneducated as to believe early pseudo-saints and pseudo-popes must be real "because... hey! look! here are their dead bodies, and not just dead bodied, they are in Vatican City!" any more than that they have the exact finger of John the Baptist that pointed at Jesus when he said "Behold the Lamb of God!" And that makes them the real church, because their worldwide museum full of mumbo jumbo counterfeit relics proves it. Frankly.... please grow-up and get real, we are talking about issues affecting eternity here.
The truth is their dumb collection of these corpses now proves they are a religion based on falsity.
Of course if it was eventually proven that "The First Epistle of Clement" was a fabricated forgery of a mentioned but lost tome, Rome would just discount their involvement. And so all forgeries like the "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals" are arguably a "win win" situation for the Catholics. We Protestants already know the love Catholics have for forgeries, like add-ons to the Book of Daniel, and the rest of their pseudo old testament canon. Constantine tried to write his enemies out of the history books.
The stories they tell, the historical characters they make up, are such a confused avalanche of fake history mixed with a few real historical points, the average Joe in the street becomes confused, and open to gullible acceptance.. This is the whole intention. Even I am prevented here from proof texts because of the sheer number of bunk "historical" stories, like St Nicholas being released from chains in prison by Jesus and Mary, after assaulting Arius in front of Constantine, so Constantine reinstated him as a bishop.
Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals
Fish head mitre.
Priest of Dagon.
St. Peter's favourite hat.
The Catholic Crusaders sacking of Orthodox Constantinople in 1204 AD
Saint Peter portrayed as a Pope in the Nuremberg Chronicle .
Who was the first so called "Head of the Church" to wear this pompous crown? Saint Peter?
In Matthew 20:20-28, and Mark 10:35-45 it says the other 10 disciples were grieved the mother of Zebedee's children, and James and John, for trying to sit on the right side and the left side of Jesus in his glory.... but to prove Peter was not made Head of the Church..... we hear no such grumblings from the other 11.
THE 1054 SPLIT:
When the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox split in 1054 (which in reality was centred on the rapid spread of the relatively new Catholic theological claim that the Head of the Church would be a Pope whose lineage went back to St. Peter) the two Empires of Rome and Byzantine (Constantinople) Became more distinct. But...... what happened to the so called "Apostolic Lineage" of the bishops? This is very very very important. Remember the Orthodox say post 1054 there was one church and owned the fanciful list of Apostolic bishops as their own. So as time went by, and Orthodoxy and Catholicism spread independently of each other for nearly 1,000 years, what happened to the lineage of bishops over cities and countries? Did they:
1) Vanish in all countries dominated by Catholics? And from the Catholic perspective vanish in all countries dominated by the Orthodox?
2) Diverge - that is the Catholics and Orthodox fork out into two lineages in specific countries and cities, each claiming singular apostolic succession, and their counterpart to be bogus, while claiming both had a common descendant?
3) Vanish then reappear: That is the lineage of true bishops in many countries and cities stopped, for decades or hundreds of years, but was then reestablished by a ceremony performed by Orthodox Clergy, reestablishing a true bishop, and thus denying there has to be an unbroken line of descent.
4) How do you get an apostolic bishop if the Catholic or Orthodox move into areas like Alaska or even the North Pole?
It would take a lot of work to trace the lineage claims in various countries and cities across the world, especially as for nearly 1,000 years the Catholics and the Orthodox spread independently of each other across the Planet. It might expose some very interesting disagreements, not to say self refutations, about who the true bishops were, and expose two very distinct "apostolic lines" both claiming to be true as the other was "anathema",
ANATHEMA BISHOPS:
For about 1,000 years the supposedly infallible Catholic and Orthodox churches pronounced each other anathema. We then saw anathema bishops supposedly ordaining other anathema bishops from their two perspectives. Some of these were ordinary bishops (wizards) others so called Patriarchs or the Pope (top wizards). As they both preach a false Gospel ironically God saw them both as anathema, the Catholics and the Orthodox, as stated in the word of God in Galatians 1.
Ecumenical Orthodox and Catholics now want to find a way to talk their way out of this dilemma, that self refutes Apostolic Succession, but there is a division over Ecumenicalism, some Orthodox recognising if the church is supposed to be infallible there is no way back.
CONTRADICTIONS IN TRYING TO "FIX" THIS:
some of you may wish to research the life of Antonio De Rosso.
Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_De_Rosso
And the subject of The Orthodox Church in Italy or Old Catholic:
(Italian: Chiesa Ortodossa in Italia) an Old Catholic denomination mainly present in Italy. The jurisdiction is registered with the Italian authorities both as Orthodox Church in Italy and Old Catholic Church in Italy.[1]
TWO HEADS OF THE SAME CHURCH?
For those trying to reunite Orthodoxy and Catholicism, it seems difficult to reconcile over the fact that for about 1,000 years they both have a lineage of two separate leaders, a Pope who is "Head of the Church" in Rome, and a "Titular Head of the Church" in the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
WHO WAS REALLY THE FIRST "POPE"? Boniface III ?
The Catholics give a list of men right back to Peter who they say were Popes. Some Protestants say however that Boniface III was the first man to be made a Pope in 607 AD, declared through imperial decree of the Roman government, when Emperor Phocas supposedly proclaims him "Universal Bishop" and "Head of all the churches" , transferring this idea from Constantinople to Rome, leading to the eventual split in 1054 AD. So was it also Phocas who first propagated the doctine to misinterpret Matthew 16 that St. Peter was made a Pope, and all Popes descend in that line of so called "apostolic lineage? If so either Phocas or Boniface III can be argued as one of the most evil men in all of history, indeed both ere anyway by joint effect, but I speak in theological terms.
This explanation of the "first Pope" makes a lot of sense! You see the Roman Centurion Phocas was originally a middle ranking officer in the Eastern Roman Army, who helped to opportunistically overthrow Constantinople acting at first as a messenger, following an army rebellion against the emperor Maurice in 602. As the new usurping Emperor Phocas he took the opportunity, while in power, to use his links to the Eastern Empire to give credibility to a transfer of the idea of a special bishop from Constantinople to Rome, reconfiguring it to the more outright claim of "Head of the Church" .
Emperor Phocas.
Pope Boniface III
The first ever Pope?
The subtlety is very pronounced. Bishop Gregory I selected him to be a legate to the imperial court in Constantinople in 603, before Boniface became the first Pope, by being made so called "Head of the Church" not just Bishop of Rome, via the new Emperor pf the Byzantine city of Constantinople, Phocas (a Catholic inside man).
This is my research so far.
In summary, when John IV, Patriarch of Constantinople, started calling himself the "Universal Bishop" Gregory I, Patriarch of Rome, did not say, "Hey that's my title, you have right to wear it." Instead Gregory said that no man should consider himself the "Universal Bishop" calling it the sign the "antichrist" was near. (see 2 Thess 2:3-4) The bishop of Constantinople, John IV. was saying, "I am over you", Gregory was saying, "we are equal", even though Gregory would readily make the false claim that he, not John, was a successor of Apostle Peter.
this page is under contruction
PROTESTANTS:
Protestants outright deny there is an such need of continuity.
WAS THERE CONTINUITY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?
Was there a "continuity" present after the long captivity of Judah in Babylon? Or in the diaspora of The 10 tribes (a word used 3 times in the NT) ? Or the captivity in Assyria? Are the Orthodox saying continuity of clergy was a Jewish doctrine they have adopted?
LAYING ON OF HANDS.
Acts....
(this article is in progress)
THE APOSTLE OF OUR FAITH.
Chapter III of the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium (1964)
THE APOSTASY:
You must understand the subject of the Apostasy to properly understand Apostolic Succession (see my future article on the Apostasy). In Revelation chapter 2 to 3 Jesus outlines heresies that had begun to pollute the early church in what is now Turkey. In his bible notes Schofield rightly expounds the Nicolaitane heresy (Nico = above, Laitan = the laity "above the laity") as the beginning of Catholic/Orthodox style heresy, where pseudo priests usurp authority unjustly over the people, contradicting Matthew 23:8 "ye are all brothers".
This type of heresy grew and grew, and as false churches used idols and heathen alters there would be more archaeological evidence left behind of them than in the Spirit believers in the house church movement, whom it says in Acts also alternatively met by rivers in nature. And so I would not think it was impossible that some of the dubious characters Catholics and the Orthodox quote as early bishops actually did believe in the heresy of Apostolic succession. As Jesus outlined heretical cults were evolving, we must simply apply the word of God to doctrines arising. But I would find it entirely easy to identify a cult leader from a church leader by simply examining his doctrines.
footnote:
Some Protestants make a very strong case that the heresy of Apostolic Succession, the literal interpretation of the communion, and misunderstanding of John 3:5 as physical water (introducing a man or bogus priest into salvation) was what produced the fulfilment of the Apostasy and the "man of sin".
Quote:
"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time"
However this is hotly contested even among Protestants.
Apostolic Succession .
This might be defined as:
ORIGIN :
The origin of the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, in my opinion, is that the first person recorded to have believed in it was Simon the Sorcerer, who said, quote
"And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost." Acts 8: 18-19.
Here Simon thought powers can be passed on from person to person, when powers are manifested through men by individual grace, not some power transfer man to man, like a baton in a relay race.
WHAT IS IT'S GOAL?
The satanic goals of the heresy of apostolic succession are:
1) The early church described in the bible was identical to the modern day Evangelical House Group movement. In one fell swoop of biblical logic this pin points the true purest form of church we have today.
To disguise the fact that their false church is nothing whatsoever like the first church described in the bible, with their rites, rituals, man made traditions, idols, uniforms and crowns etc Orthodoxy and Catholicism have needed to invent a heresy that gets people away from the sure foundation of sticking to scripture (that God declares actually infallible and the foundation of doctrine) into a man made maze of priestcraft and churchianity, the rules of which are openly declared by Orthodoxy as created after the new testament.
2) To snatch away the Word of God:
In the parable of the Sower Jesus warned us, quote:
"Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:
And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.....
The sower soweth the word.
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts." (Mark 4)
Apostolic Succession is a doctrinal device to achieve the objective of Satan in the Parable of the Sower to quote "take away" the word of God out of people's hearts and replace it with traditions and heresies similar to those found in the Talmud.
3) Empire Building:
Having taken people away from the purity, surety, infallibility and stability of the Holy Word of God, into a man made world of churchianity and authority figures, religion is used to take over whole nations by a process of indoctrination, conversion of religious power into political power, and land acquisition, dominate people's lives on (frankly) power trips, dress up in crowns, and lord it over "the laity".
WHAT IS APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION?
OED:
apostolic succession:
noun
(in Christian thought) the uninterrupted transmission of spiritual authority from the Apostles through successive popes and bishops, taught by the Roman Catholic Church but denied by most Protestants.
Britannica:
Apostolic succession,
in Christianity, the teaching that bishops represent a direct, uninterrupted line of continuity from the Apostles of Jesus Christ. According to this teaching, bishops possess certain special powers handed down to them from the Apostles; these consist primarily of the right to confirm church members, to ordain priests, to consecrate other bishops, and to rule over the clergy and church members in their diocese (an area made up of several congregations).
Some Protestant churches and Evangelical churches believe there are Apostles today, but not in the concept of Apostolic Succession which is the belief power is handed down from person to person. This would be of two types:
1) The power is given though God
and
2) The power is in the bishop to transfer
which amounts to two different heresies
Among small number of Evangelicals who believe in present day Apostles the definition is usually "a church planter". That is someone who goes about from Country to Country, State to State (USA), county to county (UK) city to city, or even within one city or province, leaving new churches started behind his visits. The founding church might go for decades before they believe a person is specially anointed from God with this "special gift" without it being transferred by laying on of hands, it is said to be an anointing out of the blue by God, resulting from perhaps the dynamic growth by the person also fuelled by God's blessings.
WHEN DID APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION BEGIN?
The root of this heresy is in the Pharisees of the Old Testament. In the gainsaying of Core (Jude 1: 11) Core jealously imagined he was a man with the same kind of chosen ministry as Moses, and was proven wrong when both he and his family were swallowed into a crevice in the Earth. Like the Apostles Moses had a special gift from God, that of writing Holy Scripture by inspiration, and as such God used both to lay down law.
The gainsaying of Core was not the end of this lust for power. A further corrupting of the same heresy developed when the 40 elders thought they had such power also, after Moses died. As the centuries went by, and Israel and the Jews were both corrupted by the two captivities in Babylon and Assyria, the Pharisees began an oral tradition of law, in effect laying down laws themselves by way of traditions, and this was repudiated by Jesus.
200 years after Jesus ascended into heaven the Jews finally wrote out these traditions in the Talmud. To this day the base foundation heresy of Judaism is a type of succession of false authority passed down through their 70 elders, who they think can establish new law by way of tradition.
So we see that the concept of apostolic succession is rooted in the false religion of Judaism and the gainsaying of Core. Not long after the Jews sat down and wrote the Talmud, the newly evolving Christian heretics began to create their own traditions, rites, and rituals. A pseudo Christian form of Talmudic rebellion against the word of God that resulted in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox religions had begun, replacing the 40 elders with apostles, indeed the Orthodox name 70 Apostles to try to draw a parallel between the two, when whereas the existence of 70 elders was biblical, the heretical teaching that they had powers similar to that of Moses was not biblical - it was the poison of the rebellion of Core.
APOSTOLICS SUCCESSION AND PATRIARCHS.
The core centre of Apostolic succession is rooted in another separate heresy - that there are 8 living Orthodox patriarchs who oversee clusters of specific countries. As one of the biggest refutations of Apostolic Succession is the collapse of the Patriarchy ruled from Italy by the Pope, we have to look at the 5 Patriarchs as existed in the year of the Great Schism.
This is because the Orthodox themselves agree with Protestants that completely false Patriarchy's exist, one being the present day Catholic Patriarchy ruled over by the Pope, all of whose Popes they have at some point in history to the present day declared as false, even anathema,
Secondly the Oriental Orthodox church see themselves as Patriarchs overlapping with countries who the Orthodox see themselves as Patriarchs over. Thus we have two countries with two patriarchs who singularly are said by these two opposing religions to have only one Patriarch, their own, meaning they both also confirm with and agree with Protestants that this is another form of bogus Patriarchy where people declaring themselves overseeing bishops across entire countries are pretenders.
As the Orthodox themselves therefore declare Roman Catholic and Oriental Patriarchs as false patriarchs, we are already halfway to proving the concept doctrinal error, and now only need to convince the Orthodox their own patriarchs are as just as false to complete the refutation. That is they already say themselves that millions of people are being tricked into thinking certain men have authority they do not have through lying apostolic succession.
THE POPE IS A FAKE.
The Orthodox say the Pope is a complete fake as he is an heretic multiple times over to them. So when the great schism happened in 1054 his "apostolic line" ended, and all the countries he had authority in had no patriarch. So what has happened since?
either:
1) All those countries continually therein after have had no patriarch, just a fake one.
2) The countries involved have been shared out and transferred to other so called real patriarchs.
I hope you are beginning to see how the entire bogus concept of apostolic succession is so tied into the equally heretical idea there are patriarchs it is already crumbling into powder.
WAS PAUL THE 12th APOSTLE?
There is a belief among Protestants that to be an Apostle you must be a witness to the resurrected Christ. There belief is that appointing Matthias "using lots" (almost like dip dip dip - are out) was just a notion of Peter and not from the Holy Spirit, and that in fact the Apostle Paul was the God appointed 12th Apostle. I think this is a very credible theory. Paul saw the resurrected Christ on the Road to Damascus and he spoke directly to him. If so the so called "infallible church of Orthodoxy" do not even know who the 12 apostles were!
Contrast:
, St. Dismas and Gestas
reference:
1) The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch.
2) The Didache,
3) The Epistle of Barnabas,
4) The Epistles and the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp,
5) The Fragments of Papias,
6) The Epistle to Diognetus.
7) St. Gregory the Great: Pastoral Care.
8) St. Irenaeus:
9) The epistles of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Smyrna