>>18103203
1. Women aren't allowed to be Pastors/Bishops.
2. Apostolic succession doesn't exist.

>Apostolic succession doesn't exist.
lmao
>protestants
not even once

SUFFER WOMAN NOT TO TEACH

>>18103241
>lmao
Thanks for exposing yourself. Enjoy Hell.

>>18103221
Then why were women allowed to be Apostles? Checkmate brownie.

>>18103203
The Church of England and Anglican Churches have been ordaining women for years. Why was this the straw that broke the camel’s back?

>>18103265
>women Apostles
Chapter and verse, King James Version. You can't produce it? You're a proven liar.

>>18103243
Paul was giving a specific instruction to a certain congregation which was probably being mislead by women teaching heresy, not making a universal rule for the entire church.
Prove me wrong, you can't.

There are other women teachers in the NT who are laudes, the OT itself including a woman who was judge over Israel in the distant past. Her name is Deborah.

I say this as someone who belongs to a denomination that bars women from the priesthood, but allows them to teach.
Bishops and priests aren't the only people who can teach in the church and a lot of the time they are so busy with other things that this task is delegated, catechesis is often performed by laity and women can do this if they're qualified.
Women are restricted from positions of church leadership, although the head of a religious order of women should rightfully be a woman (Hildegard von Bingen), not from the mere office of teaching.

>>18103288

We can start by quoting the entire chapter:
2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Verse 12 is the conclusion and verse 13, 14 is the argument for the conclusion.

>>18103288
cont

To put it another way; when you break your leg, do you put your entire body in a cast?

Paul's instruction was an act of healing given specifically to a certain congregation corresponding to a member or limb of the body of Christ. When you cut yourself, you *bind* up that part of you which is bleeding; not your entire body. And when the cut is healed, you loose the bandages and wraps off.
Simple really, basic medicine.

>>18103288
>I say this as someone who belongs to a denomination that bars women from the priesthood, but allows them to teach.
>priesthood
There it is. Tick tock.

File: 1742856609631806.jpg (265 KB, 700x500)

265 KB JPG

>>18103221
> Apostolic succession doesn't exist.
Fool!
Apostolic succession is OLDER than Christ

It's literally the Rabbinic Succession that started with Moses and he himself had to abide by it in order to actually become a Rabbi

The entire point of John the Baptist was so he could recieve his semikha so he could be an actual Rabbi
Even the Pharisees pressed him on this, asking who gave him the rights to be a Rabbi, to which he answered,
> “I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things.. John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or of human origin?"

Jesus upholds tradition and magisterium
Why don't you?

>>18103319
>Luce(fer)
Stopped reading. Those flames just got hotter.

>>18103321
Stop speaking for God

>>18103322
>speaking for God
I can just give you his direct words:
>But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
You're so fucked. :)

>>18103297
I was thinking of the Corinthians, must have mixed them up in memory.
Would you rather be taught by a knowledgeable woman or an ignorant man?

>inb4 implying
It's true.
Anyways, I don't deny that women shouldn't have *authority* of the apostolic kind over men.
However teaching is not the same office, as seen in 1 Corinthians 12. To my mind, a woman who has knowledge and ability should not be barred merely on account of her sex.

The problem for protties who deny apostolic succession is, that this kind of authority according to them passed away with the apostles and was never passed along to successors. Which means this prohibition would have to be considered void. Therefore, they would have no grounds for protesting a woman in place of some lesser kind of authority over them.

>>18103334
No. You are just another man, playing God

>>18103343
>No
No, what? He didn't actually say that? Or "No, don't quote the Bible. I hate God's word."?
>The thought of foolishness is sin.
This is fun! God hates you, by the way.

>>18103355
Quoting the Bible doesn't mean shit
Anyone can do that


You're worthless

>>18103357
>You're worthless
Interesting. How about this one:
>And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee
You're just inviting more damnation upon your head. Keep going!

>>18103363
Ok
“I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

See? I can do that too!
You're so fucked. :)

>>18103366
You're extremely retarded. Have fun burning!

>>18103369
.>But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
Have fun burning! :)

>>18103370
That verse doesn't apply to me. See >>18103369

>>18103375
Yes it applies to you . See>>18103370

You suck :^)

>>18103376
This is boring. Bye!

>>18103379
Have fun burning :)

>>18103339
>Would you rather be taught by a knowledgeable woman or an ignorant man?
Non-religious matter: knowledgeable woman.
Religious matter: ignorant man.

I just read the bible and interpret it, simple as. Also have a great sunday.

>>18103382
Good response.

>>18103319
>It's literally the Rabbinic Succession
>Moses and he himself had to abide by it in order to actually become a Rabbi
And people Christianity isn't jewish.

>>18103407
>I hate God
No one cares.

File: 1731132647276015.jpg (60 KB, 850x531)

60 KB JPG

>>18103339
>Would you rather be taught by a knowledgeable woman or an ignorant man?
It's not a matter of who's more qualified
It's a matter of law and order

Jesus himself had to receive Baptism from John the Baptist, and John told him that he was the one who should be baptized by him.

Jesus never gave the authority to be a clergy to a woman, not because he deems them inferior, but because he has a different role reserved for them.

The priesthood was given to Adam
Covenant to Abraham
Law to Moses
Messiah to Jesus

Follow the order that God set
If you think that you are better than the one in charge of you, then your duty is to guide him, not replace him

This is exactly what's wrong with Protestants. They think that they are better than the priest, as such, they started their own Churches and became their own Popes

File: your eternal suffering retard.png (1.25 MB, 1080x1077)

1.25 MB PNG

>>18103436

File: 1730850241681628.png (1.61 MB, 1080x1077)

1.61 MB PNG

>>18103446

>>18103241
>>18103319
Luther was an ordained Catholic priest, as was Hus, Zwingli, Knox, among others. The churches these men founded therefore have valid apostolic succession.

>>18103462
Only bishops can ordain...

>>18103462
not that anon

I have heard that the apostolic succession requires that one have proper doctrine. But I'm a prot myself

>>18103475
Okay, then every episcopal Protestant church founded by ordained Catholic priests fulfill apostolic succession.
>>18103478
They never question the apostolic succession of the eastern churches, even though the doctrinal differences were once considered essential.

>>18103462
You don't have apostolic succession if you were not an ordained Bishop

Priests are just pawns.
Bishops are the successors of the apostles

>>18103610
See >>18103492

File: 1754321509614769.jpg (15 KB, 500x300)

15 KB JPG

>>18103614
See what?
Mere priests are not successors of the apostles therefore they have no apostolic successions

>apostolic succession of the eastern churches
Valid
As well as the Ethiopian, Assyrian, and Georgian churches, all ordained by the apostles.
Apostolic succession is older than the apostles

They are not like the Protestants where any member can just make their own Church. Each Church require approval from the leadership

>>18103319
>OLDER than Christ
Christ is ETERNAL. He IS God.

>>18103628
No. Don't deny the Incarnation

>>18103276
Romans 16:7. KJV actually makes it clearer.

>>18103635
Adronicus is male

Junia is unknown

Her being female contradicts Paul's other teaching that women can't lead and should be silent in the church

>>18103638
NTA but I wonder if the church could ever come around to accepting the scholarly opinion that the historical Paul didn't teach that, and the bit concerning it in the 1 Corinthians 14 is an interpolation + the pastorals are forgeries. Is the church capable of correcting its canon over a thousand years in or is that just a lost cause?

>>18103621
Episcopal Protestant churches exist.
>inb4 they have to be FOUNDED by bishops
First Protestant Archbishop of Sweden Laurentius Petri was consecrated by Peder Månsson, Bishop of Västerås, who had been appointed by Pope Clement VII himself and consecrated by the Bishop of Pesaro.

>>18103646
Alright, he does
But, unless he ordained other members into becoming bishops, then the Church does not have the apostolic succession

>>18103632
That doesn’t deny the incarnation. You are denying the trinity and Christ’s divine nature. John 1:1-5.

>>18103653
Don't be pedantic

>>18103649
That's what episcopal churches do, they ordain bishops to lead the church.

>>18103659
If that's true, then they are not protestants
They are just another Church - tradition, scriptures, and magisterium

>>18103638
Junia is literally declined female. If you knew how to read Latin it would be obvious (Unlike Greek I don't need a dictionary for Latin). Church fathers also said she was female, but again you can't even explain why the bible exists.

>>18103665
The only thing that defines Protestantism is sola fide, not whether they have an unbroken line of apostolic succession.

>>18103638
>Her being female contradicts Paul's other teaching that women can't lead and should be silent in the church
The line about women being silent in church was very likely added in there by later scribes. Paul didn't write that, or if he did, it was not intended to be included in the main body of the letter.

>>18103654
>Don’t be pedantic about the divine nature of our lord and savior by pointing out the first few sentences of John.
You said no when I said Christ is eternal and is God. Those are some of the most basic and foundational tenants of the whole thing.

>>18103674
You mean sola scriptura.
If you have the tradition and magisterium, then you are not a protestant

Protestant literally got its name by rejecting the magisterium.
American protestants rejected both magisterium and tradition

The romans 16 7 verse is about them being esteemed by the apostles, not that they are esteemed apostles.

>>18103682
You get the point. Don't play dumb

>>18103683
No, Anglicans and Methodists reject sola scriptura, but they do not reject sola fide.

>>18103691
It was the fact that they rejected the Magisterium that made them Protestants

Anglican Church was founded so the king can reject the Pope's decree and be able to divorce his wife

>>18103687
My non-KJV versions say this. The KJV verse can also be interpreted as that among the apostles there was a notion of her. I don’t think it’s saying she was an apostle.

>>18103693
>so luther why did your schism happen?
>well I noted the catholic church had some incorrect view on topic x,y,z
>so why did your schism happen?
>the king wanted to divorce his wife
lmao

>>18103688
I’m not trying to play dumb. Explain then.

>>18103693
Sola scriptura is a Protestant doctrine, you are not a Protestant and do not get to come up with your own definition of it. And the Church of England, like the Church of Sweden, can trace an apostolic succession.

>>18103319
Jesus upheld tradition and magisterium by telling his fellow Jews their traditions were wrong, and their leaders were corrupt and wouldn't get into Heaven?

>>18103645
The truly based move would be to admit that it shouldn't be in the canon but then go on keeping women out anyway because you can't argue with over a thousand years of relative success compared to the churches that disregarded the rule.

>>18103691
No. Anglicans, Methodists and Pentecostals reject Sola Scriptura.

>>18103712
Sola Fide. Typo.

>>18103436
>This is exactly what's wrong with Christians. They think that they are better than the rabbis, as such, they started their own synagogues
I don't think too highly of myself, but I do think I am at least better than the popes who committed fornication and pressed for the immolation of certain Christians.

>>18103708
>their traditions were wrong
What happened to "all the law and the prophets"?

>>18103700
We are talking about the apostolic succession

>>18103712
>>18103714
Not officially, no, and going beyond what the official doctrines are leaves you with a never-ending purity debate.

>>18103728
Methodism and Pentecostalism rely on "Sanctification" which is just theosis.

>>18103707
Church of England claims to have apostolic succession, but its definition of it is different

Anglicans define the succession as just a continuation of beliefs rather than the actual laying of hands, as Jesus did

>>18103733
Other way around. Anglicans unironically have a perfect record of who laid hands on who since Augustine of Canterbury. It's actually the Vatican that can't prove a couple 1500s popes.

>>18103718
It doesn't matter whether or not you think that you are better
You are not incharge, therefore you should not try to cause chaos

It doesn't matter if they engage in sin. Their job is to Evangelize, deliver the sacraments, and uphold the tradition.
Whether they are welcomed or rejected by Jesus once they enter his court is non of our concern

>>18103728
Actual Anglicanism, not Rwandan, says it's faith and works. It's not a purity cycle as the CoE is the real Anglican church.

>>18103733
Matthew Parker, first Elizabethean Archbishop, was consecrated by William Barlow, bishop of Chichester, who was consecrated by Thomas Cranmer, the first Protestant Archbishop, who was consecrated by John Longland, Bishop of Lincoln since before the schism.

>>18103724
Some were overturned when he said to turn the other cheek instead of repaying an eye for an eye. Others were never divinely-inspired despite being ordered by otherwise legitimate religious authorities, such as the requirement to wash one's hands before eating.
>And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
>So, for the sake of your tradition, you nullify the word of God.
>This people honors me with their lips, / but their hearts are far from me; / in vain do they worship me, / teaching human precepts as doctrines.

>>18103736
>Augustine of Canterbury
That's 600 AD, who is subsevient to the Pope
Anglican Church was founded by King Henry to reject the Pope's ruling

Whether they continued on with the apostolic succession is up to them

File: IMG_2227.jpg (166 KB, 768x1024)

166 KB JPG

Established church. Open communion. Woman Priests. Simple as.

>>18103743
Sola fide is in the Thirty-Nine Articles.

>>18103742
It matters because it precludes us from doing mercy.

>>18103751
That makes sense. Thank you.

>>18103756
Augustine of Canterbury was considered an "Apostle" by both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but more importantly, the CoE merged in Aristobulus of Britannia's church, which according to Church fathers a church established by one if the 70 from Luke 10. Keep in mind the entire structure and posture of the Catholic church since Trent, and Eastern Orthodoxy since the Crimean war has been to try and refute Anglicanism, which is very much a branch of Early Christianity.

>>18103758
Thirty Nine articles are an agreement by Bishops who aren't considered infallible, and can simply be overridden by other Bishops. Rome is to the South.

>>18103770
If he is not a Bishop, he is not a successor of the apostles

>>18103751
Eye for an eye was a judicial command while turning the other cheek is about interpersonal quarrels. It's not like jesus said "If someone rapes your wife, give him your daughter too" or "If someone tries to slit your throat, stand still so he can do a good job".

>>18103775
You sound mad. He is an Apostle. But again, Aristobulus of Britannia is senior to Paul in the pecking order.

>>18103774
The modernist CoE doesn't care about upholding any traditional doctrines.

>>18103778
I am not anything
I am just telling you the proper order of it

If you do not receive the rank of a Bishop, you do not have the apostolic succession, and that's it

It is possible for a Protestant Church to have apostolic succession. But, for the most part, most, especially the Americans, do not.

>>18103781
It does. It cared about apostolic tradition. Which means it can override some bishops who were wrong. It could even change the canon if it liked. It is no different than the RCC or EO.

>>18103783
If someone is Episcopalian they have apostolic succession. You might not like their views or positions but it is absurd, as they can trace the laying of hands directly back to Paul. This is simply a fact anon.

OPEN QUESTION: did the Donatists have apostolic succession?

>>18103776
>It's not like jesus said "If someone rapes your wife, give him your daughter too" or "If someone tries to slit your throat, stand still so he can do a good job".
I agree with this. Fleeing, and perhaps restraint, is appropriate, but fighting back isn't.
>Do not resist an evildoer.

>>18103813
How do you square that with the war laws were God orders the Israelites to commit genocide and raze cities? Jesus agreed with this as every person in the trinity has the same will and intellect.

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

19 When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them?[b] 20 However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2020&version=NIV

>>18103821
>the same will and intellect

I'm not sure about that.

>>18103794
Yes, bishops were part of their movement on day one and those bishops consecrated the new ones.

>>18103834
Explain how you're not a tritheist if the persons of the trinity have different wills and intellects.

>>18103849
Because he is retarded.

>>18103849
I'll try? I was thinking that three wills can differ, but not contradict, as in cooperate, and not with limited power, but with their full power, and perfectly. In other words, different with respect solely to person but also co-equal in all of their attributes.

>>18103849
I'm not arguing against the Trinity, but there are these passages of Scripture to consider:
>Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me, yet not my will but yours be done.
>Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away, for I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
>When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me.
>But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but only the Father.

File: 1734251030206292.jpg (6 KB, 144x180)

6 KB JPG

>>18103708
He never said that their traditions were wrong
He says that their interpretation of it is wrong.

It isn't a blind accusation. He willingly debated them and they lost each one.

It is the same as the Church's councils.
if you are not willing to challenge your beliefs, then, chances are, you are wrong and you know it

>leaders were corrupt
What organization isn't?

>>18103742
I question how well one living in sin can evangelize. And I think this is absolutely our concern because it will directly affect whether we're learning from an actual Christian or not. Are you really saying you're completely alright with someone who is not a Christian being a leader of Christian doctrine? Here are some scriptural qualifications for a bishop btw. If any bishop were to violate these, I'm not sure he would even have any authority:
>The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil.

File: 1758112590269333.png (58 KB, 170x146)

58 KB PNG

>>18103890
Mate, EVERYONE in the Bible committed a sin
David's line itself was corrupted right from the start.
Too many times, the temple was conquered and devoted to false Gods.

And yet, God still upheld his covenant and delivered the messiah under the Davidic line.

The same is expected of the Church

The Apostles betrayed and abandoned Jesus. And yet, he never revoked their authority to lead.
His order was to remain in his Church and wait for his return.

Yes, we can argue that people of the Church are expected to be in a higher standard. But it is not our authority to revoke their rights to lead.
So long as they do their job, they are not to be fired or excommunicated

Jesus said it himself, even if you are a sinner, so long as you are with him, you are still capable of exorcising demons. But once you meet him, he will tell you, "I never knew you"

>>18103882
The Pharisees were promoting traditions that were never in Scripture, not just interpretations.
>What organization isn't?
An organization led by those filled with the Holy Spirit. I would think a church with corrupt leaders would mean the Gates of Hell have prevailed against it.

>>18103882
>>18103906
Pathetic Leo has a 2D woman, while Charles had a 3D one.

>>18103916
No they aren't
Scriptures ARE tradition

>An organization led by those filled with the Holy Spirit
The very people he handpicked betrayed and abandoned him

>>18103906
Paul says a bishop must not be violent, greedy, an alcoholic, etc. Why do you, then, say that it is alright for a bishop to be those things? This is not to mention to conspiracy to cover-up child molestation performed by the clergy.

>>18103924
It is not "alright"
Lying in sin just doesn't revoke your authority within the Church

It erases your name from the Book of Life, but you are still a Bishop, while you are alive

>>18103927
Why are they still bishops when Paul says they shouldn't be bishops?

A Archbishop should be an English woman and not an Italian.

>>18103923
What part of Scripture states that people must wash their hands before they eat? Unless the Mishnah is Scripture, I'm not familiar with that passage.
I am definitely an advocate for forgiveness, but the apostles ultimately repented (and relatively quickly) of their sins. I would not think of Thomas as having authority if he never repented for denying the Resurrection. So why should we follow a teacher who continually refuses to repent? We would be better learning under those who are living in righteousness.

>>18103958
Brother, the Misnah and Talmud was created AFTER the temple destruction precisely as a cope against Christians

File: jmhfr-18-dirk.jpg (27 KB, 400x261)

27 KB JPG

>>18103821
This is a valid point. For many years, I was a proponent of war and self-defense within Christianity too, but within the past few months, I've begun to believe that Christians had ought to be pacifists. Just as the Law given to Moses has now passed away, so have the commands to wage war.
>Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also
>Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
>Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you; pray for those who mistreat you.... Do to others as you would have them do to you.
>Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse, but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing.
>Never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord.” Instead, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink, for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
I believe in this current age, we are not to harm others. Even if they're evil, even if they deserve it, even if it costs us our own worldly lives. This command, too, may very well pass away for Christians when Jesus returns as a warrior-king. But for now, his seems to be the command we are to follow. Perhaps this is commanded to us now because man can have the necessary empowerment from the Holy Spirit that is needed to live like this that was unavailable in previous ages, but that's just conjecture on my part.

And from my own subjective viewpoint, I have been much happier striving to not hold any hatred against others. Even if the hatred is justified, feeling hatred just makes me feel worse.

File: Ottoman_Provincial.jpg (207 KB, 563x787)

207 KB JPG

>>18103978
This is fine and all until a horde of Ottomans arrive and want to make a dhimmi out of you

>>18103928
They are dispossessed of their office, but the sacraments leave an indelible mark on your soul.

Once you are ordained, it cannot be undone. You cannot be unbaptized either.
So when someone is excommunicated, they still have the mark of baptism or confirmation on them, marriage, etc.

>>18103858
I haven't learned to reason about this stuff before.

>>18103860
I'll admit that the first sentence here contradicts the second.

>>18103867
I am not arguing against the Trinity in the first place.

I've now read that the Son has two wills, and have inferred that without sin, his human will is entirely obedient to the divine will, like we see in the passages quoted.

File: Christina's World by Andr(...).jpg (173 KB, 838x561)

173 KB JPG

>>18103985
It's easy for me to say what the right thing to do would be when I've never been in a situation like that, but I think that a Christian should still refuse to fight back. One should live the best life he can while under oppression, praying for the Lord to deliver them from evil. Fighting back and killing such invaders would also probably send them, as non-Christians, to Hell. We should never want that. Persevering under affliction would even serve to show invaders the peace one can have from being a Christian, which would surely result in converts. I don't mean to be naïve. I know this would be a very hard life to live, but the love of God is the one thing that absolutely no one else can take from us. God has chosen to gift his grace to all who want to receive it, meaning it is solely up to us to not sever ourselves from his love.
>Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will affliction or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all day long;/ we are accounted as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than victorious through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

File: file_0000000045b06230a105(...).png (2.43 MB, 1024x1024)

2.43 MB PNG

Apostolic succession is usually defined as the transmission of spiritual authority from the apostles through an unbroken line of bishops. Whether women can participate in that succession depends entirely on how one defines both authority and sacrament. In the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, succession is not merely historical—it's sacramental. Ordination requires valid matter (a baptized male), form (the rite), and intent. Because these traditions teach that Christ chose male apostles and instituted a male priesthood that acts in persona Christi (in the person of Christ), they hold the Church has no authority to ordain women, making any attempted ordination invalid. The line breaks there by definition—not as punishment, but as metaphysical limitation.

However, other Christian traditions challenge that premise entirely. Many Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and Old Catholics ordain women and still claim apostolic succession, arguing that succession is primarily continuity of apostolic teaching and mission, not male lineage. Historically, "succession" was not about magical transmission but preserving right doctrine against heresy. They also point out women like Junia (Romans 16:7), Phoebe (Romans 16:1), and Priscilla (Acts 18) held real authority in the early Church.

So the disagreement isn't really about gender—it's about ontology. Is priesthood a mystical participation in Christ's sacrificial role tied to biological sex, or is it a communal office rooted in spiritual gifts and apostolic fidelity? Traditions answer differently, so the disagreement persists. The debate exposes a deeper fracture: is the Church a closed metaphysical system or a living tradition still unfolding?

File: 9757c613aaecdf9caf8b2d17e(...).jpg (128 KB, 1116x837)

128 KB JPG

>>18103319
Impressive. Very nice
Now let's see how you justify supersessionism

I get what you’re saying, but you’re confusing Christian endurance with voluntary humiliation. “Turn the other cheek” was never a command to submit to evil—it was a way to deny the oppressor the power to define your soul. Christ never taught passive surrender; He taught fearless integrity.

There’s a dangerous modern heresy that treats Christianity like a religion of total compliance—as if holiness means letting invaders burn your home, take your family, and say “thank you, sir, may I have another.” That isn’t the Gospel—that’s just “turn the other cheek” rewritten as “go ahead and get these cheeks.” That’s not love, that’s spiritual masochism dressed up as virtue.

The Church has never taught that protecting the innocent is sinful. Aquinas said defending others is an act of charity. Augustine said peace without justice is just the silence of the defeated. Even Paul, the apostle you quoted, invoked Roman law to resist abuse. Sometimes refusing to fight is not moral—it’s cowardice wearing a cross.

Christians aren’t called to cruelty—but we’re also not called to surrender the world to wolves. Evil shouldn’t be hated—but it must be opposed.

Anglicanism is based because it was started by Henry VIII, who was based. Simple as.

>>18104714
>That isn’t the Gospel—that’s just “turn the other cheek” rewritten as “go ahead and get these cheeks.”
Amazing how the AI can say things like this while maintaining a consistent rhetorical tone.

>>18104713
>supersessionism
I have no need to justify that
Temple was already destroyed
Jesus is the new temple

Christians are the true Jews
Anyone who continued practicing Judaism is a heretic

File: file_000000003ca461f59026(...).png (1.97 MB, 1024x1024)

1.97 MB PNG

That's bc it's hybrid. In my kekksuit era, G...

>>18103478
It actually doesn't, not to say it's irrelevant.
For example, if you do not consider ordination to be sacramental that is a big red flag that the ordination is not valid or licit.
This is the problem Anglicans and to a lesser extent other protestants run into.

For example, though a large number of Arian bishops baptized and ordained, after the defeat of their heresy there was no mass rebaptism campaign and most of them retained their sees provided they repent.
Even these heretics, despite their error in Christology and his relationship to the father, understood the sacramental nature of ordination.
This is why Athanasius advocated they retain their sees; despite their error, they really did have apostolic succession.

>>18103492
You truly don't understand this topic.
Try actually consuming apostolic media that explains it instead of shooting from the hip.

Priests do not ordain other priests or grant them that office, except in the sense that all believers share in the priesthood of Christ.

>>18103646
This is the ONLY bishop to have gone along with the so-called reformers.

Though he would personally remain a bishop due to the indelible mark on the soul left by the sacrament, the means by which he pretended to ordain new ministers were not recognized as sacramental, and were thus void.

Moreover, the bishop who ordained him was actually pressured to do so by the king. Meaning he didn't actually give true consent, which is a requirement.
Though this ritual may have had the outward form, it had nothing of the inner substance.
Your view of apostolic succession is extremely low.

>>18103736
Maybe you aren't aware, but the Vatican libraries were trashed and burnt in the streets during the sack of Rome by the HRE earlier in that century.
This is why the record was lost. The Vatican archive had to be rebuilt afterwards by drawing upon resources from all around the Christian world.

It's understandable why you might not know about this, it's fringe stuff.

>>18105449
1500s not 1400s Romcel.