Apostolic Succesion

[totallylost]

Many churches claims that they have Apostolic Succession. This includes Orthodox Churches, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist and some of the other Protestant Churches. However, their definition of Apostolic Succession is very different from Catholic Church. (just informing, not to debate or anything)

But we have our Pope traced back to St. Peter and Bishops traced back the Twelve Disciples without broken line. However, I only can find on Internet the list of Pope successions since St. Peter, and cannot find the list of Bishops. Can anyone help me with this? Just for fun.

 

[ConallCernach]

I can provide the founders of a good chunk of denominations but the Eastern Orthodox do have a claim to Apostolic Succession as I understand.

"What is the History of Your Church?

Church: Year Est.: Founder: Where Established:

Catholic 33 Jesus Christ Jerusalem

Orthodox 1054 Schismatic Catholic Bishops Constantinople

Lutheran 1517 Martin Luther Germany

Anabaptist 1521 Nicholas Storch & Thomas Munzer Germany

Anglican 1534 Henry VIII England

Mennonites 1536 Menno Simons Switzerland

Calvinist 1555 John Calvin Switzerland

Presbyterian 1560 John Knox Scotland

Congregational 1582 Robert Brown Holland

Baptist 1609 John Smyth Amsterdam

Dutch Reformed 1628 Michaelis Jones New York

Congregationalist 1648 Pilgrims and Puritans Massachusetts

Quakers 1649 George Fox England

Amish 1693 Jacob Amman France

Freemasons 1717 Masons from four lodges London

Methodist 1739 John & Charles Wesley England

Unitarian 1774 Theophilus Lindey London

Methodist Episcopal 1784 60 Preachers Baltimore, MD

Episcopalian 1789 Samuel Seabury American Colonies

United Brethren 1800 Philip Otterbein & Martin Boehn Maryland

Disciples of Christ 1827 Thomas & AlexanderCampbell Kentucky

Mormon 1830 Joseph Smith New York

Methodist Protestant 1830 Methodist United States

Church of Christ 1836 Warren Stone & Alexander Campbell Kentucky

Seventh Day Adventist 1844 Ellen White Washington, NH

Christadelphian (Brethren of Christ) 1844 John Thomas Richmond, VA

Salvation Army 1865 William Booth London

Holiness 1867 Methodist United States

Jehovah’s Witnesses 1874 Charles Taze Russell Pennsylvania

Christian Science 1879 Mary Baker Eddy Boston

Church of God in Christ 1895 Various churches of God Arkansas

Church of Nazarene c. 1850-1900 Various religious bodies Pilot Point, TX

Pentecstal 1901 Charles F. Parkham Topeka, KS

Aglipayan 1902 Gregorio Aglipay Philippines

Assemblies of God 1914 Pentecostalism Hot Springs, AZ

Iglesia ni Christo 1914 Felix Manalo Philippines

Four-square Gospel 1917 Aimee Semple McPherson Los Angeles, CA

United Church of Christ 1961 Reformed and Congregationalist Philadelphia

Calvary Chapel 1965 Chuck Smith Costa Mesa, CA

United Methodist 1968 Methodist and United Brethren Dallas, TX

Born-again c. 1970s Various religious bodies United States

Harvest Christian 1972 Greg Laurie Riverside, CA

Saddleback 1982 Rick Warren California

Non-denominational c. 1990s various United States"

Fr. Bossart.

 

[NHInsider]

OP was requesting a list of bishops back to the apostles. That would be a huge tome!! However many, perhaps most dioceses would be able to create a list of their own bishops, so you could compile a list if you were determined. It would be somewhat less complicated than a many-generationed family tree, since you wouldn’t double the number of “parents” in each generation. . . .

 

[ConallCernach]

If that’s the case, there are 1000s of bishops. There are numerous diocese and about 2000 years to cover.

 

[totallylost]

Thanks Fr. Bossart and NHInsider.

Your list of church founders are quite useful in some way too.

I’m just doing my own research for no purposes. In the words, I’m just curious.

 

[Morwenna]

However, I only can find on Internet the list of Pope successions since St. Peter, and cannot find the list of Bishops. Can anyone help me with this? Just for fun.

I know this isn’t exactly what you’re looking for, but it might be of some use:

catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/la.html

If you click on a Bishop’s name, then look on the lower left side of his page, you can see his Apostolic Succession. Oddly, all the ones I checked seem to go back only to Scipione Cardinal Rebiba. Why, I don’t know. Maybe they’re still working on the site?

Anyway, hope this helps at least a bit.

 

[ConallCernach]

Thanks Fr. Bossart and NHInsider.

Your list of church founders are quite useful in some way too.

I’m just doing my own research for no purposes. In the words, I’m just curious.

Just for clarification, I am not Fr. Bossart, he is a priest friend of mine that complied the list.

Pax

 

[CentralFLJames]

I get a kick out of this question. I would first reply back “outside of the bible where is there any other evidence that the apostle’s were real men and did the things they said”?

There are no exhaustive written records of the entire pedigree of the bishops going back 2000 years since many church records were destroyed over the 20 centuries by decay of time, war, etc. and not everything was always written down and accounted for verbatim.

Evidence lending credibility is that no one other than Catholics and Orthodox and just a few other small apostolic churches make a real and legitimate claim on apostolic succession. However, the Catholic Church has been in perpetual existence from the very beginning. There is architectural evidence that goes back as far as Constantine’s time in the presence still of the papal church - Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome. No denomination on the planet makes a claim that it belongs to them. Only Catholics make this claim and our pope’s have been using it since the 4th century of the Church.

The whole question is like asking somone to prove their family membership and ignoring that they are the children of their parents and the home that their family has lived in from as far back in history as anyone can remember. Most Family Photo albums do not go back more than about 4-5 generations (to the time silver plates were available in photography) yet no one challenges the children of the latter generations not having photos of their great-great-great-great grandfathers in their albums.

The proof is in the ecclesial genes so to speak and the continuity of teaching. The faces change over the many centuries but the familial resemblance is still there and so are the same traditions that we have carried for 2,000 years.

James

 

[Randy_Carson]

Many churches claims that they have Apostolic Succession. This includes Orthodox Churches, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist and some of the other Protestant Churches. However, their definition of Apostolic Succession is very different from Catholic Church. (just informing, not to debate or anything)

But we have our Pope traced back to St. Peter and Bishops traced back the Twelve Disciples without broken line. However, I only can find on Internet the list of Pope successions since St. Peter, and cannot find the list of Bishops. Can anyone help me with this? Just for fun.

I’m not sure how this fits into what you’re looking for, but it is my understanding that when a priest is consecrated as a Bishop, at least three Bishops perform the ordination as an extra safeguard concerning valid orders.

Can anyone clarify this yay or nay?

 

[diggerdomer]

Many churches claims that they have Apostolic Succession. This includes Orthodox Churches, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist and some of the other Protestant Churches. However, their definition of Apostolic Succession is very different from Catholic Church. (just informing, not to debate or anything)

But we have our Pope traced back to St. Peter and Bishops traced back the Twelve Disciples without broken line. However, I only can find on Internet the list of Pope successions since St. Peter, and cannot find the list of Bishops. Can anyone help me with this? Just for fun.

The Orthodox Churches’ definition of Apostolic Succession is not very different from the Catholic Church. In fact, it’s because they do have (as the Catholic Church sees it) valid Apostolic succession that their sacraments are considered valid by the Catholic Church.

 

[Morwenna]

I’m not sure how this fits into what you’re looking for, but it is my understanding that when a priest is consecrated as a Bishop, at least three Bishops perform the ordination as an extra safeguard concerning valid orders.

Can anyone clarify this yay or nay?

It would appear to be true, based on the link that I provided above. You can see that for each Bishop there is one name listed as “Principal Consecrator” and two others listed as “Principal Co-Consecrators.” This was true for all the entries that I viewed (and I looked at quite a few).

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m not sure how this fits into what you’re looking for, but it is my understanding that when a priest is consecrated as a Bishop, at least three Bishops perform the ordination as an extra safeguard concerning valid orders.

Can anyone clarify this yay or nay?

This was an ancient and long-standing practice in the Catholic Church, moreso before it became common for the Pope to name Bishops. The point behind the practice was to ensure and demonstrate unity and communion, i.e. when one diocese got a new bishop, local/surrounding dioceses (3 being considered an adequate number) would participate and affirm the new bishop so as to witness to the unity of the Church.

 

[Spirithound]

Many churches claims that they have Apostolic Succession. This includes Orthodox Churches, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist and some of the other Protestant Churches. However, their definition of Apostolic Succession is very different from Catholic Church. (just informing, not to debate or anything)

But we have our Pope traced back to St. Peter and Bishops traced back the Twelve Disciples without broken line. However, I only can find on Internet the list of Pope successions since St. Peter, and cannot find the list of Bishops. Can anyone help me with this? Just for fun.

We don’t actually claim that the line of Popes constitutes Apostolic Succession, because most Popes were not consecrated bishops by other Popes. Apostolic Succession is properly said to be possessed by all Bishops because of their episcopal ordination, which can (at least) be traced by to Cardinal Rebiba (cite: Catholic-Hierarchy).

 

[diggerdomer]

We don’t actually claim that the line of Popes constitutes Apostolic Succession, because most Popes were not consecrated bishops by other Popes. Apostolic Succession is properly said to be possessed by all Bishops because of their episcopal ordination, which can (at least) be traced by to Cardinal Rebiba (cite: Catholic-Hierarchy).

What?

Of COURSE the line of Popes is part of the Catholic Church’s claim to Apostolic succession.

Similarly, of COURSE Apostolic succession is not limited to the Popes but incorporates all Bishops as successors to the Apostles.

No need to cite some (relatively obscure) 16th century Cardinal Rebiba. Apostolic succession goes all the way back to Christ.

 

[maize]

I know this isn’t exactly what you’re looking for, but it might be of some use:

catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/la.html

If you click on a Bishop’s name, then look on the lower left side of his page, you can see his Apostolic Succession. Oddly, all the ones I checked seem to go back only to Scipione Cardinal Rebiba. Why, I don’t know. Maybe they’re still working on the site?

Anyway, hope this helps at least a bit.

thats cause they can only trace it to him, beyond that theres no verifiable documentation.

 

[CentralFLJames]

thats cause they can only trace it to him, beyond that theres no verifiable documentation.

That’s just as far back as the paper trail goes. Paper and parchment, especially the low quality paper of the middle ages that was left on dusty non-air-conditioned archives does not last all that long. But the Catholic Church has never been a paper-tiger nor has to prove to itself who it is. Our apostolic succession is written in the blood of its saints and the towering cathedrals and in the small chapels all over the globe that can all trace themselves to the bishops and saints who founded and oversaw them. It was virtually a death sentence to be a Catholic bishop in the first 300 years of the Church.

James

 

[MarcoPolo]

There is architectural evidence that goes back as far as Constantine’s time in the presence still of the papal church - Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome. No denomination on the planet makes a claim that it belongs to them. Only Catholics make this claim and our pope’s have been using it since the 4th century of the Church.

James can you expound on why it is important that only Catholics make claim that they owned this building?

 

[CentralFLJames]

James can you expound on why it is important that only Catholics make claim that they owned this building?

Sure.

This Church is important because no one on the planet has had the audacity to dispute that The Catholic Church has not owned and used this Church since the 4th century. It is indisputable forensic evidence that links the papal and apostolic succession as far back as the 4th century since it is the official residence and Church of the Bishop of Rome from that time forward.

It is literally the cathedral of the Church of Rome and the official ecclesiastical seat of the Bishop of Rome, who is the Pope. It is the oldest continuously used Christian Church and ranks first (being the cathedral of Rome) among the four major basilicas of Rome, and holds the title of ecumenical mother church (mother church of the whole inhabited world) among Roman Catholics.

No Protestant denomination or other non-Catholic so calling itself “Christian” organization has ever claimed to own or occupy this Church nor conducted mass nor held religious gatherings in this church. Nor has any Orthodox or so called “other” apostolic succession church or “other” Christian “denomination” EVER made this claim - since it would be ludicrous for them to attempt it. So, in place of written records that span the dark ages (where little we written down and preserved) this church has stood perpetually as a beacon of light for all Christendom and still stands to this day as a testimony of continuous Catholic presence from the early days of the Church to this day.

Did anyone challenge Jesus genealogy and ask him to prove his lineage to King David through a paper trail or did they do it purely based on genealogy and family name? Why do some want to hold Catholics to an arbitrary standard to prove our apostolic succession with mere paper when Christ never proved his own genealogy with a paper trail??? Like Christ our heritage is in the blood-line and familial lineage and continuity.

James

 

[Erich]

Orthodox 1054 Schismatic Catholic Bishops Constantinople

Actually, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The East-West Schism was not the result of only one definite quarrel. It is not true that after centuries of perfect peace, suddenly on account of one dispute, nearly half of Christendom fell away. Such an event would be unparalleled in history, at any rate, unless there were some great heresy, and in this quarrel there was no heresy at first, nor has there ever been a hopeless disagreement about the Faith. It is a case, perhaps the only prominent case, of a pure schism, of a breach of intercommunion caused by anger and bad feeling, not by a rival theology. It would be inconceivable then that hundreds of bishops should suddenly break away from union with their chief, if all had gone smoothly before. The great schism is rather the result of a very gradual process. Its remote causes must be sought centuries before there was any suspicion of their final effect. There was a series of temporary schisms that loosened the bond and prepared the way. The two great breaches, those of Photius and Michael Caerularius, which are remembered as the origin of the present state of things, were both healed up afterwards. Strictly speaking, the present schism dates from the Eastern repudiation of the Council of Florence (in 1472).

 

[MarcoPolo]

Sure.

This Church is important because no one on the planet has had the audacity to dispute that The Catholic Church has not owned and used this Church since the 4th century. It is indisputable forensic evidence that links the papal and apostolic succession as far back as the 4th century since it is the official residence and Church of the Bishop of Rome from that time forward.

It is literally the cathedral of the Church of Rome and the official ecclesiastical seat of the Bishop of Rome, who is the Pope. It is the oldest continuously used Christian Church and ranks first (being the cathedral of Rome) among the four major basilicas of Rome, and holds the title of ecumenical mother church (mother church of the whole inhabited world) among Roman Catholics.

No Protestant denomination or other non-Catholic so calling itself “Christian” organization has ever claimed to own or occupy this Church nor conducted mass nor held religious gatherings in this church. Nor has any Orthodox or so called “other” apostolic succession church or “other” Christian “denomination” EVER made this claim - since it would be ludicrous for them to attempt it. So, in place of written records that span the dark ages (where little we written down and preserved) this church has stood perpetually as a beacon of light for all Christendom and still stands to this day as a testimony of continuous Catholic presence from the early days of the Church to this day.

Did anyone challenge Jesus genealogy and ask him to prove his lineage to King David through a paper trail or did they do it purely based on genealogy and family name? Why do some want to hold Catholics to an arbitrary standard to prove our apostolic succession with mere paper when Christ never proved his own genealogy with a paper trail??? Like Christ our heritage is in the blood-line and familial lineage and continuity.

James

The last paragraph is good. But I think Protestants will simply respond to this church building as evidence only that Catholics existed since the 4th century. And there are plenty of those folks who believe it started with Constantine anyway.