RnMomof7:
And your opinion proves there was no apostolic succession.
The opinion of St. Clement of Rome, St. Ireneaus of Lyons, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Jerome, St. Augustine is against you. I will side with those great theologians whose writings against the heretics of the early Church stand as a witness to legitimate and orthodox Doctrine.
On the question of Apostolic Succession, Prof. JND Kelly [Anglican-Church of England] writes:
“[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (See Early Christian Doctrines, p. 37).
For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (Early Christian Doctrines).
Prof Kelly is considered one of the leading Patristic scholars of the 20th century and his work can be found at Amazon.com
So I leave all the readers of this forum to make a decision based on the testimony of the CHurch Fathers and Professor Kelly or RnMomof7 when thinking about your statement “the truth is there is no apostolic succession in the NT church”
tsk, tsk,
I am glad I am in the same church. Well said.