Talk:Apostolic Johannite Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

This article cites no sources and appears to have none aside from its own website and a smattering of weblogs created by members of the organization. This organization does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and it makes unsupported, essentially unverifiable, claims.

Where is the proof it has the largest membership or that it's a continuation of an earlier body?

First off, it is helpful to sign your posts so people know to whom they are speaking. Secondly, at no point does the AJC claim to have the largest membership, although the number of active parishes is a good indicator of size, and these claims are clearly both supported and verifiable. So much for that particular straw man.
Regarding the claim to be *a* (mind you, a, not the) continuation of Fabre-Palaprat's Church, this claim is supported by the episcopal succession which passed through Bertil Persson and others to the bishops of the church. These are well established and can be located easily enough on the web.
So...the question I put to you is, what sources or proof of notability might you be looking for? It has not been around long enough to be a matter of academic study, and it has no scandals that would make it particularly newsworthy. It is, however, a functioning body and of interest to many wikipedians, as evidenced by the activity in its discussion page.

Wbehun 02:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wbehun, all articles on Wikipedia must meet certain WP:Notability standards to be included in Wikipedia. This article does not appear to meet the standards of notability required by Wikipedia.
Dear anonymous user: your opinion is noted, however it is interesting that you have not addressed any of the points or questions I raised. Wbehun 04:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean for the church's Apostolic Succession to be valid? RJFJR 05:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is understood by the church to mean that it maintains a hand to hand succession on the episcopal level back to the original apostles without interruption or failure of form, intent, or matter. It is essentially a technical issue stemming from the designation by the Roman Catholic Church of consecrations performed without consent of the Holy See as "valid but illicit." Wbehun 01:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Johannite

As far as I can tell Apostolic Johannite Church and Johannite cover the same topic. I therefore suggest merging them.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify whether the AJC believes that John the Baptist is the savior before a merge is done as that's what Johannites believed. --Lendorien 19:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am in a position to speak for the AJC and can definitively state that the AJC does not hold John the Baptist to be the saviour. While John the Baptist holds a very important place in the theology of the AJC, it is not "Johannite" in this particular sense. That this is a defining belief of classical "Johannites" as Lendorien suggests is eminently debatable, as a number of schools and groups have referred to themselves as Johannite, often taken the term in very different ways. Wbehun 04:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Apostolic Succession

It would appear to me that the Catholic Church would not regard the episcopal ordinations to be valid due to the disparity in belief. See Bishop (Catholic Church). If both the RCC and the EO likely view it as invalid, it's definitely disputed. Gabrielthursday 00:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Roman Catholic Church considers these consecrations to be valid but illicit. Disparity in belief is not sufficient cause for invalidity in the Roman view. Note, for example, that consecrations effected by the Orthodox churches are considered valid despite the fact that that were administered by "Heretics." In the Orthodox tradition, things are more stringent, as consecration requires appointment by a Patriarch to an episcopal see for validity. As such the Orthodox churches do not consider valid any line stemming from the Episcopi Vagantes, as that would be for them a contradition in terms. According to Roman practise, however, so long as the form, matter, and intent are all present, the consecration is valid. Unfortunately, we do not have anyone participating in this discussion who is qualified to speak on behalf of any of the Patriarchs, so the question is an open one. However, the AJC's argument for its Apostolicity follows that of other Independent and Autocephalous churches. Wbehun 03:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is contrary to what is said in the Apostolic Succession part of the entry I pointed to in the first instance. Regarding the Eastern Orthodox, with respect to their view of the validity of Catholic sacraments, they are generally agnostic, while remaining far from unified even in their agnosticism. See, for an overview: [1] Gabrielthursday A While Back (UTC)


I can only speak from my understanding of Roman Catholic Canon Law: while I am an expert in the AJC's canons, I am not an expert on Roman Catholic Canon Law. As I am given to understand it, though, the entry you referenced above is in error. As evidence of this I can only submit that Orthodox and Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism are not reordained. This hardly settles the issue, though. However, this article is only about the claims to Apostolicity of the AJC, and I suggest that while there may be differing standards (The Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Swedish Lutheran, and Indepedent Catholic churches all make claim to apostolicity) the standard that the AJC uses is a reasonable one: we're not putting floppy ears on a cat and calling it a bunny. Wbehun 02:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
For slightly different reasons, Anglican ministers are ordained upon conversion to Catholicism. While the AJC may be satisfied with its apostolicity, that is hardly relevant to the article as it stands now. Also, Anglicanism is a poor corollary for the AJC's status, due to the circumstances referenced in Apostolicae Curae. I'm going to go ahead and edit, but by all means I'd like to have your contributions, comments & objections. Gabrielthursday 10:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I have taken out the merger notice, both here and at Johannite; with respect to my other edits, I doubt the relevance of when Doinel's movement received episcopal consecration. If there was a dispute over the nominal episcopal lineage, I'd see the relevance. As it is, the fact would be relevant to a page on the "Gnostic Restoration", but not this article. With respect to apostolicity, I think it is enough (and hopefully, less confusing) to mention the claim of valid Apostolic Succesion, and the meaning the AJC gives to its apostolicity. Thoughts, Wbehun? Gabrielthursday 10:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I am going to add the Doinel reference back in: here's my thinking. Since the AJC claims Apostolicity (and I frankly have no problem with the language of "claim" here) but it more in keeping with the Doinel Church (which originally made no such claims to Apostolicity) it is relevant that the Doinel church was sufficiently consonant with the Apostolic tradition to be integrated into it later in the Doinel Church's history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wbehun (talk • contribs) 13:21, August 22, 2007 (UTC).