Apostolic Succession and Eledhat
Apostolic Succession and Eledhat
Does the Avelan Church believe in apostolic succession traced back to the Twelve Apostles of Iesu? If so, who was the link to Oikumene? I don't think you've mentioned of any ordained members of Mihel's crew before, zomp... so I was curious if there was some 'secret priest' that you've neglected to tell us about who went ahead and ordained members of the early church.
I think that having a valid clergy would [at the very least] be of great importance to the Elenicoi. Without ordained priests, there is no-one to confect the sacraments. And those are mighty important...
I suppose there could have been some sort of and "Ordination by Fire" event in which Mihel and the other Elenicoi were ordained by the Holy Spirit (Although maybe only God the Son could/would do ordination... I don't know, I'm no theologian). That might be a way to wiggle around the issue.
Anyways, back to the subject. Whether or not there is a valid priesthood, do the Eledhi place a high importance on a continuity of succession, or is that not as important?
Related to this, what is the signifigance of the Kebreni Primate essentially declaring himself 'pope'?
I think that having a valid clergy would [at the very least] be of great importance to the Elenicoi. Without ordained priests, there is no-one to confect the sacraments. And those are mighty important...
I suppose there could have been some sort of and "Ordination by Fire" event in which Mihel and the other Elenicoi were ordained by the Holy Spirit (Although maybe only God the Son could/would do ordination... I don't know, I'm no theologian). That might be a way to wiggle around the issue.
Anyways, back to the subject. Whether or not there is a valid priesthood, do the Eledhi place a high importance on a continuity of succession, or is that not as important?
Related to this, what is the signifigance of the Kebreni Primate essentially declaring himself 'pope'?
Re: Apostolic Succession and Eledhat
Hmm. I think they'd have problems maintaining the doctrine in its Orthodox form. First, though it seems reasonable that the ship would have some priests aboard, surely it wouldn't have a bishop. Second, the merger with the Arashei explicitly recognized the inspiration of the Arashei tradition, which of course does not go back to Iesu.Kudzu wrote:Does the Avelan Church believe in apostolic succession traced back to the Twelve Apostles of Iesu? If so, who was the link to Oikumene? I don't think you've mentioned of any ordained members of Mihel's crew before, zomp... so I was curious if there was some 'secret priest' that you've neglected to tell us about who went ahead and ordained members of the early church.
I think they'd maintain that the Miracle of the Translation itself consecrated their mission— if God himself exerted himself to establish the Avélan church, it lacks nothing in authority.
Certainly once they'd arrived in Érenat they organized a church very much on Orthodox lines, with priests and bishops, and seminaries to ensure doctrinal conformity. So continuity of succession certainly is important to them.
As a practical measure, it was considered necessary to allow evangelization in Kebri, which was still suspicious that Eledhát was simply an anti-Kebreni conspiracy. Sevasto is said to have disliked the Avélan Patriarch anyway, so his self-elevation was not without personal gratification. However, there is no doctrinal difference, and Avéla has never suggested that the Kebreni church is in any way illegitimate.Related to this, what is the signifigance of the Kebreni Primate essentially declaring himself 'pope'?
Maybe Zomp could state that some Eled'i believe this particular ship was selected for the Miracle of the Translation precisely because it happened to have a bishop on board. 
(It's not like bishops don't ever travel, right? But, still... a bishop traveling by ship is a heck of a lot more probable than a ship getting yanked to other worlds Narnia-style.)
I don't know if it would violate canon by making Mihel a bishop, or simply say that he was a secular officer who happened to have a lot of fire in the belly.
(It's not like bishops don't ever travel, right? But, still... a bishop traveling by ship is a heck of a lot more probable than a ship getting yanked to other worlds Narnia-style.)
I don't know if it would violate canon by making Mihel a bishop, or simply say that he was a secular officer who happened to have a lot of fire in the belly.
Impossible to say, since from our perspective it's simply a missing ship. Who knows how many missing ships actually made interdimensional voyages?BGMan wrote:(It's not like bishops don't ever travel, right? But, still... a bishop traveling by ship is a heck of a lot more probable than a ship getting yanked to other worlds Narnia-style.)
- So Haleza Grise
- Avisaru

- Posts: 432
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:17 pm
Allow me to disagree - before printing, books were awfully expensive things. Even in many churches, the only book available may have been a gospel text for reading at services, not a full bible.So Haleza Grise wrote:If there was a ship of 4th-century Christian traders, it's hard to believe that there wouldn'y be a Bible, surely.Shm Jay wrote:Having a bishop on board would make it more believable that a Bible would be on board too.
And bible reading by lay persons was not very far-spread before the reformation. So I'd expect a bible (or a gospel text) on board only if there would have been a priest. (Of course, if the Lord provided for Christians to be transferred to Almea, he might also have provided them with a bible, or a very good recollection of its text).
Best regards,
Hans-Werner
That’s why He provided a bishop too: to carry the Bible. (Would it have been a codex, or a big box of scrolls?) And, oh yes, to consecrate priests. (I hope that’s the word; I’ll feel very foolish if I’ve forgotten what it is.)hwhatting wrote:(Of course, if the Lord provided for Christians to be transferred to Almea, he might also have provided them with a bible, or a very good recollection of its text).![]()
Close.Shm Jay wrote:That’s why He provided a bishop too: to carry the Bible. (Would it have been a codex, or a big box of scrolls?) And, oh yes, to consecrate priests. (I hope that’s the word; I’ll feel very foolish if I’ve forgotten what it is.)
This sounds like medieval times, not ancient. My chief source on ancient life is Ariès and Duby, A History of Private Life; they don't answer all the questions I have, and hint that some are unanswerable. But a hallmark of the ancient notable was literacy. As an example they show a painting of a couple from Pompeii; as signs of their social status they hold a scroll and stylus.hwhatting wrote:Allow me to disagree - before printing, books were awfully expensive things. Even in many churches, the only book available may have been a gospel text for reading at services, not a full bible.So Haleza Grise wrote:If there was a ship of 4th-century Christian traders, it's hard to believe that there wouldn'y be a Bible, surely.
And bible reading by lay persons was not very far-spread before the reformation.
Notables made up perhaps a tenth of the population, and there was no great distinction between nobles and bourgeois. Landowners speculated in business and started commercial or trading enterprises; rich merchants bought themselves land.
The expedition of the Elenicoi, though it was not intended to find new lands, must have been a project of a wealthy consortium; I don't think it was that unlikely that it would possess a bible.
I agree that the situation in late antiquity was different from the Middle Ages, and I don't doubt that a wealthy merchant would have been rich enough to own and literate enough to read a bible. But I don't know whether they would take a valuable manuscript on a dangerous sea journey, especially if it'd be not for sale, but for reading.zompist wrote:This sounds like medieval times, not ancient. My chief source on ancient life is Ariès and Duby, A History of Private Life; they don't answer all the questions I have, and hint that some are unanswerable. But a hallmark of the ancient notable was literacy. As an example they show a painting of a couple from Pompeii; as signs of their social status they hold a scroll and stylus.hwhatting wrote: Allow me to disagree - before printing, books were awfully expensive things. Even in many churches, the only book available may have been a gospel text for reading at services, not a full bible.
And bible reading by lay persons was not very far-spread before the reformation.
Notables made up perhaps a tenth of the population, and there was no great distinction between nobles and bourgeois. Landowners speculated in business and started commercial or trading enterprises; rich merchants bought themselves land.
The expedition of the Elenicoi, though it was not intended to find new lands, must have been a project of a wealthy consortium; I don't think it was that unlikely that it would possess a bible.
Anyway, my points were addressed mostly against So Haleza's "hard to believe that not"; they were supposed to show that a bible on the ship was not a matter of course, not to mean that this would have been totally unlikely.
And now, ad auctorem: there was, or there wasn't?
Best regards,
Hans-Werner
Additionally, was it as common among lay people to read the Bible in private devotion as it is now? On the other hand, I don't believe Zomp says anywhere exactly what the merchants were carrying- perhaps among their goods they were carrying supplies for a new church?hwhatting wrote:But I don't know whether they would take a valuable manuscript on a dangerous sea journey, especially if it'd be not for sale, but for reading.
Salmoneus wrote:(NB Dewrad is behaving like an adult - a petty, sarcastic and uncharitable adult, admittedly, but none the less note the infinitely higher quality of flame)
Since you ask, yes.hwhatting wrote:And now, ad auctorem: there was, or there wasn't?![]()
(From my reading, it's not clear if the Indian church actually existed in the 4th century... but it does seem that the Greek church thought it did, which is all that's needed here.)
- Debegduk ing Debegduked
- Sanci

- Posts: 16
- Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:12 pm
Certainly a lot of modern Indian Christians claim that the church has been around since the 4th century...zompist wrote:(From my reading, it's not clear if the Indian church actually existed in the 4th century... but it does seem that the Greek church thought it did, which is all that's needed here.)
U bronazda Lin, broZuspabimaded guze ner liuringemeni!
There are people who believe that Jesus wasn't crucified, but went to and died in Kashmir, where he is buried:Debegduk ing Debegduked wrote:Certainly a lot of modern Indian Christians claim that the church has been around since the 4th century...zompist wrote:(From my reading, it's not clear if the Indian church actually existed in the 4th century... but it does seem that the Greek church thought it did, which is all that's needed here.)
http://www.tombofjesus.com/home.htm
Ask yourself what Jesus would do ... for tourism.
Hans-Werner
- So Haleza Grise
- Avisaru

- Posts: 432
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:17 pm
Since the 1st, in fact. St Thomas is supposed to have founded the Church in India.Debegduk ing Debegduked wrote:Certainly a lot of modern Indian Christians claim that the church has been around since the 4th century...zompist wrote:(From my reading, it's not clear if the Indian church actually existed in the 4th century... but it does seem that the Greek church thought it did, which is all that's needed here.)
Duxirti petivevoumu tinaya to tiei šuniš muruvax ulivatimi naya to šizeni.
- Debegduk ing Debegduked
- Sanci

- Posts: 16
- Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:12 pm
Where, according to the Gospel of Thomas (Apocrypha), he was taken by an Indian merchant, to whom Jesus had sold him as a slave.So Haleza Grise wrote:Since the 1st, in fact. St Thomas is supposed to have founded the Church in India.Debegduk ing Debegduked wrote:Certainly a lot of modern Indian Christians claim that the church has been around since the 4th century...zompist wrote:(From my reading, it's not clear if the Indian church actually existed in the 4th century... but it does seem that the Greek church thought it did, which is all that's needed here.)
Great stuff, the things that didn't make the cut to get into the Bible!
U bronazda Lin, broZuspabimaded guze ner liuringemeni!
So then is the Avelan Church/ the Elenicoi in communion with Rome? Or is the situation more like the Eastern churches (e.g. the Maronite Church in Syria and Lebanon), or a seperate entity, like the various Orthodox Churches?
On the same subject, are they considered Nicaean? I notice the ship left Egypt in 325 AD, which is the same year as the First Council. Have there been any theological developments over time?
On the same subject, are they considered Nicaean? I notice the ship left Egypt in 325 AD, which is the same year as the First Council. Have there been any theological developments over time?
لا يرقىء الله عيني من بكى حجراً
ولا شفى وجد من يصبو إلى وتدِ
("May God never dry the tears of those who cry over stones, nor ease the love-pangs of those who yearn for tent-pegs.") - Abu Nawas
ولا شفى وجد من يصبو إلى وتدِ
("May God never dry the tears of those who cry over stones, nor ease the love-pangs of those who yearn for tent-pegs.") - Abu Nawas
- dunomapuka
- Avisaru

- Posts: 424
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 11:42 pm
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
Boy #12 is right: they're not in contact with Rome, and of course they've had both their own development (notably, the union with the Almean Eledhi) and been untouched by developments in terrestrial Catholicism, including priestly celibacy, the adoration of Mary, and the supremacy of a single pontiff.
hmm, I was just wondering, what with the Swedish embassy thing, if there had been any recent contact between the two, but I guess that pretty much answers my question.
لا يرقىء الله عيني من بكى حجراً
ولا شفى وجد من يصبو إلى وتدِ
("May God never dry the tears of those who cry over stones, nor ease the love-pangs of those who yearn for tent-pegs.") - Abu Nawas
ولا شفى وجد من يصبو إلى وتدِ
("May God never dry the tears of those who cry over stones, nor ease the love-pangs of those who yearn for tent-pegs.") - Abu Nawas
Thought I post that here instead starting a new thread:
The way religious communities normally work, I would assume that there was resistance to the Eled'at union? Are there any significant groups of Christians or Arašei left who reject it? I'd expect that to be the case, as the Eled'e church cannot rely on state institutions to enforce unity, at least outside of Avéla...
The way religious communities normally work, I would assume that there was resistance to the Eled'at union? Are there any significant groups of Christians or Arašei left who reject it? I'd expect that to be the case, as the Eled'e church cannot rely on state institutions to enforce unity, at least outside of Avéla...




