@Escoffier @KingOfWhiteAmerica @Sulla_Felix @James_Dixon @somemightsay My understanding from studying the early church is that the "Elders" would be the presbyters, and that there were two types of elders -- the ruling elders, and generally one teaching elder, who was what was called the Bishop. Serving under the elders were helpers -- deacons.

But there was no higher authority in the individual local church than this Bishop -- i.e. teaching elder. Or what we might call the pastor. Although Paul certainly tried to serve the function of an "overseer of bishops (i.e. the spiritual leaders of individual churches)" this was in very early days, and nowhere does scripture endorse the existence of archbishops, cardinals, etc.

As for apostolic succession -- I am rather iffy that this is at all unbroken if, in the line, you find men such as popes who fucked married women and had their husbands murdered etc etc etc. Although all people sin, the idea that someone can engage in THAT level of evil AFTER installation as Pope and be a valid apostle is not sane. And multiple such popes existed prior to the schism with the orthodox.

So I do not buy that an actual meaningful person-to-person succession actually exists. Rather, the succession is one of the spirit, not the physical. That said, the installation of a Bishop/Pastor that includes the laying on of the hands of others already in the ministry of that denomination DOES (at least in theory) assure the orthodoxy of the newly installed Bishop's doctrine.

However, the very existence of hundreds of Christian denominations and borderline schism even within those -- with the founders of nearly all of these having been previously ordained by the laying on of hands of a bunch of ministers of the existing denomination -- demonstrates the ineffectiveness of this.

Either way, I don't think that just because someone thinks he can trace his ordination back 200 generations, that makes it any more valid automatically than someone who cannot. The validity is determined by the fruit -- true faith and doctrine, proper administration of the sacraments, etc.

That said, I think people see schism backwards in some cases.

An institutional denomination can fall away from the true faith and doctrine or engage in egregious institutionalized sin. In these cases, those who break away because they still adhere to the true faith and doctrine are deemed the "schismatics" even though they are the ones doing what is religiously right.

In that respect I would actually see what both the Orthodox and Martin Luther did as completely valid. (And with only minor differences I actually consider true Lutheranism and Orthodoxy to be the same faith. One would best consider true Lutheranism to be the German Orthodox church.) Schism can thus serve to preserve the true doctrine on one hand, and also a way to get heretics out of the church on the other.

But beyond all this, Christ promised that his Church (consisting of the priesthood of all believers) would be preserved until the end.

So I believe the actual Church -- this priesthood of all believers -- IS fighting against trannyism etc. We see these as individuals and small groups -- but they are there, and their faith is driving them.

This should be seen as separate from entities with government/satanic subsidies (i.e. many institutional churches today, including Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran in some countries). The fact that entities basically funded (directly or indirectly) by government would fail to oppose its satanic initiatives is not shocking.

However, Christ's Church is not the same thing. And that church still fights.