Talk:Apostolic succession

From OrthodoxWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: Regarding the following: "In addition to a line of historic transmission, Orthodox Christian churches additionally require that a hierarch maintain Orthodox doctrine as well as full commun...)
 
 
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
This sounds un-nuanced to the point of inaccuracy. When the South Bound Brook Ukrainaians were received by the Patriarch of Constantinople, for example, he recognized their apostolic succession even though they had not been in communion with the mainstream Orthodox Churches. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:37, February 6, 2009 (UTC)
 
This sounds un-nuanced to the point of inaccuracy. When the South Bound Brook Ukrainaians were received by the Patriarch of Constantinople, for example, he recognized their apostolic succession even though they had not been in communion with the mainstream Orthodox Churches. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:37, February 6, 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
: Ultimately, this question is eschatological, of course.  In cases such as the one you mention, it is rather a temporary breach of communion that is being referenced.  Schisms are always something hard to make a final statement on, though.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 03:35, February 7, 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
Sure. And, given the length of Christian history, s breach of communion for many decades can reaonably be described as "temporary." --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 15:08, February 7, 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:08, February 7, 2009

Regarding the following: "In addition to a line of historic transmission, Orthodox Christian churches additionally require that a hierarch maintain Orthodox doctrine as well as full communion with other Orthodox bishops. As such, the Orthodox do not recognize the existence of apostolic succession outside the Orthodox Church, precisely because the episcopacy is a ministry within the Church."

This sounds un-nuanced to the point of inaccuracy. When the South Bound Brook Ukrainaians were received by the Patriarch of Constantinople, for example, he recognized their apostolic succession even though they had not been in communion with the mainstream Orthodox Churches. --Fr Lev 19:37, February 6, 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, this question is eschatological, of course. In cases such as the one you mention, it is rather a temporary breach of communion that is being referenced. Schisms are always something hard to make a final statement on, though. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 03:35, February 7, 2009 (UTC)

Sure. And, given the length of Christian history, s breach of communion for many decades can reaonably be described as "temporary." --Fr Lev 15:08, February 7, 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox