WeOrthodox
EN UA

Apostolic Succession Requires Unity of Faith, Not Only a Historical Chain

The video responds to a Protestant creator known as Redeemed Zoomer, arguing that a historical line of ordination does not by itself establish apostolic succession. It notes that mainstream Protestant ministers trace their orders through Reformation leaders such as Luther, Knox, and Zwingli, who were originally ordained as Catholic priests.

However, the video contends that apostolic succession entails more than an unbroken chain of bishops; it requires the preservation of the apostolic faith within a unified church, as confessed in the Nicene Creed's description of the church as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Because Protestantism rejects that unity and the doctrine that undergirds it, the video concludes that Protestants cannot claim apostolic succession while separating it from apostolic unity and doctrine.

The argument also distinguishes mainstream Protestant bodies from non-denominational groups, which lack even a historical chain.

Key moments

  1. Apostolic succession requires an unbroken chain of bishops going back to the apostles.
  2. Mainstream Protestant ministers are ordained by other ministers tracing back to the apostles via the Catholic Church, because Reformation leaders like Knox, Luther, and Zwingli were originally ordained as Catholic priests.
  3. This does not apply to non-denominational groups.
  4. A nation alone does not establish apostolic succession.
  5. Claiming Protestants have apostolic succession while they remain divided in doctrine and communion undermines the entire idea.
  6. Apostolic succession is not just a historical chain of bishops; it requires preserving the apostolic faith within a church.
  7. The Nicene Creed identifies the church as one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic.
  8. Protestantism rejects all of that, so you cannot claim apostolic succession while separating it from apostolic unity and doctrine.
19 opinions in the discussion 12 participants, 12 replies to each other The opinion with the most support Numbers 3:10, Unauthorized persons are forbidden from assuming the priestly office. Numbers 18:7, The priesthood is given as a divinely appointed service. Ezra claims that you must trace your origins back to the levitical priest hood Read the discussion
95 comments at the source Original on Instagram

Discussion · 19

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

Log in Log in or sign up to join the discussion.

  • opinion#3402

    Numbers 3:10, Unauthorized persons are forbidden from assuming the priestly office. Numbers 18:7, The priesthood is given as a divinely appointed service. Ezra claims that you must trace your origins back to the levitical priest hood

    • opinion#3407

      Giving the requirements for Levitical priests is different from what we see in the priesthood in the New Testament. So according to Peter, who you claim is the verse pope, 1 Peter 2:9: "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light."

    • opinion#3408

      Brother Paul instructs Timothy and Titus to ordain priest and Deacons and they all must be of good doctrine

    • opinion#3409

      i'm aware of the qualifications in Titus chapter 1 and first Timothy chapter 3, and the qualifications for deacons in first Timothy chapter 3. Now that you're aware of that, I find it ridiculous that you would refer to the Old Testament for a New Testament office. But regardless, that doesn't nullify 1 Peter. It just doesn't make them leaders in the church.

    • opinion#3410

      I'm just saying that like the OT we have ordained order that must be in one communion with each other. I find it more ridiculous that multiple denominations appoint pastors who are not even in communion with other Protestant sects.

    • opinion#3411

      well I find it ridiculous that you would think or even imply that everyone that you call Protestant is Protestant. I mean y'all throw Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses into that category and they're not protestant. They're not even Christian. And if we're gonna look at the order of church leadership or people being ordained, the New Testament is a better source than the Old Testament, because none of the people alive today are Levitical priests.

    • opinion#3412

      Obviously but Christ was the fulfillment of that priesthood. The Protestant church, even high church, is a mess. Arminianism, 5 point Calvinism, and the list goes on. You don't have a unified church, that's a problem. Christ said in his prayer to the father, I pray that they are one like we are one. The Trinity doesn't have multiple wills, but it seems in Protestantism that you can't even agree on fundamental things such as how we are saved, because some affirm OSAS and that baptism saves, and the list goes on. So who's right? Where is your theology in the early centuries? What father taught sola fide, and don't quote Clement or Hilary. Where is your canon. I'm bringing these points up because if your pastoral priest was legit, then why is it so ununified.

    • opinion#3413

      you're pointing out problems in the church that have existed from the very beginning. The Galatians got distracted by the Judaizers and believing that they still had to be circumcised. The Corinthians didn't know how to behave in church. They all had their own problems, but guess what, they were all united in the belief and trust of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. By the way, Roman Catholicism aligns with Arminianism a lot more than you realize. And why would I want to align myself with the church whose Soteriology does not align with scripture? The Bible never teaches about infant baptism. So remember, when you point the fingers at other people with theological differences, you have some real problems yourself.

    • opinion#3414

      bro, half your leadership didn't qualify to even be in leadership. You're the pot calling the kettle black. Many of your popes did not meet the qualifications, and if they ever did, they were disqualified by the atrocities they committed. You sound like the tax collector praying, thank God I'm not like them...

  • opinion#3405

    That's why his mods were converting to Eastern Orthodoxy

  • opinion#3406

    Redeemed zoomer literally says that they only have a chain of priests. But apostolic succession needs bishops

    • opinion#3415

      He is not mistaken. You need to read Saint Jerome and the Calvinist theses. Although I support monarchic episcopacy, the early Church made no distinction between presbyters and bishops. He is also fully aware of the episcopal form of church government. Watch his videos.

    • opinion#3416

      How are you saying they made no distinction between bishops & Presbyters?

  • opinion#3404

    Apostolic sucession is merely a claim by the catholic church to make people believe they have authority....

    • opinion#3417

      ah yes, "just merely a claim" i guess that's how one thinks when they're ignoring 2000 years history.

    • opinion#3418

      that doesn't even make any sense. first of all i didn't mention Catholicism, and 2nd Jesus Christ lived in the year 30AD so yes, 2000 years even if im not mentioning any church Christianity LITERALLY has 2000 years worth of history.

  • opinion#3403

    The video is a massive straw man, but I'll leave you to look into RZ, who is far more rigorous on this subject, or simply examine his work. Beyond that, there is the question of confessional Lutheran and Anglican churches, which have preserved a clearly traceable apostolic succession. In fact, the validity of Anglican orders was recognised in 1922 by several Orthodox patriarchates, including the Patriarchate of Constantinople, although the matter has since been shelved for various reasons. Furthermore, claiming that Protestantism rejects the Creed is absurd. More importantly, if you simply applied the same criteria to all churches recognised as apostolic, none of your arguments would hold up. I am a supporter of monarchical episcopacy myself, but please, let's be serious.

  • opinion#3400

    EO deny roman catholic apostolic succession. Roman catholics deny high church protestantism apostolic succession. Its just like a little kid screaming "You're not my brother anymore" but just because you say it, it doesn't deny the fact that they were ordained going all the way back to the apostles. LCMS, ACNA, PCA and others all accept the Nicene Creed.

  • opinion#3401

    it requires preserve in the apostolic teachings, which is interesting so if that's the case, y'all broke apostolic succession, not the protestants that still hold the teachings of the apostles. You broke it when you started teaching on baptismal regeneration purgatory the Ascension of Mary, the immaculate conception you broke away from sound doctrine, not us.