Yet the requirement of Apostolic succession isn’t found in the Bible. And if it IS correct - then the Roman Catholic church isn’t a real church, as it split from the Eastern Orthodox and thus no longer has Apostolic succession.
Unless you want to claim there can be multiple succession paths out there? In which case - how is it different than Lutherans?
Peter appointed an official successor to the traitor Judas in Acts 1. The Eastern Orthodox do not question the Western Apostolic succession (to my knowledge), but they are in schism with the See of Peter (on whom Christ founded His Church).
“And if it IS correct - then the Roman Catholic church isn’t a real church, as it split from the Eastern Orthodox and thus no longer has Apostolic succession.”
“Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds”[13], they merit the title of “particular or local Churches”[14], and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches.[15]”
That is from the 2007 release. It was in reference to the “oriental Churches.” If the Orthodox Churches don’t think Catholics retain apostolic succession, why do they call the Pope the Bishop of Rome?
In any case the Western Church thinks the Eastern Church has apostolic succession, or they wouldn’t call them the “Church.” They have a line of bishops and true Sacraments.
Freegards