Apostolic succession question

[AdvanceAlways]

Hi folks. I have a question regarding apostolic succession. I was looking at the lineage of my Bishop, which brought me all the way back to Cardinal Rebiba in the 1500s, but the line stops there with no information on who consecrated Rebiba. Since Rebiba’s line accounts for 90% of today’s Bishops, that is pretty significant, so how can we be assured that Rebiba was validly consecrated? (Thus knowing whether our Bishops today posses valid succession?)

 

[marty1818]

Hi folks. I have a question regarding apostolic succession. I was looking at the lineage of my Bishop, which brought me all the way back to Cardinal Rebiba in the 1500s, but the line stops there with no information on who consecrated Rebiba. Since Rebiba’s line accounts for 90% of today’s Bishops, that is pretty significant, so how can we be assured that Rebiba was validly consecrated? (Thus knowing whether our Bishops today posses valid succession?)

Well there’s no idication that he wasn’t validly consecrated.

 

[pablope]

Hi folks. I have a question regarding apostolic succession. I was looking at the lineage of my Bishop, which brought me all the way back to Cardinal Rebiba in the 1500s, but the line stops there with no information on who consecrated Rebiba. Since Rebiba’s line accounts for 90% of today’s Bishops, that is pretty significant, so how can we be assured that Rebiba was validly consecrated? (Thus knowing whether our Bishops today posses valid succession?)

Records are lost. The church was under persecution for the first 300 yrs…how could they keep records?

But we know through church tradition and early writings that Apostolic succession was maintained…through the See of Peter.

 

[JerryZ]

Well, There are some ideas about this.

Taken from this site: mysite.verizon.net/res7gdmc/aposccs/

It is widely believed that Rebiba was ordained bishop by Gian Pietro Cardinal Carafa, who became Pope Paul IV. However, no documentary evidence has been found to verify this hypothesis.

Peace

 

[R_C]

how can we be assured that Rebiba was validly consecrated?

We could push it further back: since he was ordained between 1524 and 1528 by bishop Giovanni Carandolet, how can we be assured that this other bishop was validly consecrated?

Now would the Lord allow such a messed-up thing to happen? That the vast majority of popes, bishops, and priests are not ordained because Cardinal Rebiba was not ordained, and thus also rendering all Eucharists unconsecrated (and all Masses invalid), all confessions invalid, etc.?

I mean, wow. Not possible.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi folks. I have a question regarding apostolic succession. I was looking at the lineage of my Bishop, which brought me all the way back to Cardinal Rebiba in the 1500s, but the line stops there with no information on who consecrated Rebiba. Since Rebiba’s line accounts for 90% of today’s Bishops, that is pretty significant, so how can we be assured that Rebiba was validly consecrated? (Thus knowing whether our Bishops today posses valid succession?)

We know because he was accepted as such by his brother Bishops.

 

[DavidFilmer]

We do not know this from historical records, or from doctrine. But we DO know this from basic math. If you ever thought that Bishops were bad at math, guess again!

The Emperor Constantine signed the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, which ended persecution in the Roman Empire. Constantine himself became a Christian, and suddenly it was very fashionable (and perhaps profitable) to be a Christian (before, it would get you killed). The Church was confronted with an unprecedented wave of conversions, and possibly with the problem of some people misrepresenting themselves as Christian priests and Bishops. Credentials were difficult to verify back in those days.

The problem was not really so much about a few illicit “bishops,” but what would happen if those “bishops” “ordained” other men as “bishops” (who were not aware of the illicit nature of their “consecrators”). Suddenly, the whole Apostolic foundation of Catholic Orders could be called into question (indeed, as you have questioned).

The Church needed a solution to this problem - some way to guarantee that Episcopal Ordinations were valid, even if the validity of the consecrators could not be assured. The Church turned to mathematics.

Twelve years after the Edict of Milan, the Church convened the very first full Ecumenical Council, the great Council of Nicea. This topic was on the agenda.

Only one Bishop is needed to validly ordain another Bishop. But the very first Ecumenical Council, Nicea, imposed a rule (Canon 4) which remains in place to this day - a licit Episcopal Ordination requires at least three Consecrators. As long as just one is valid, the Ordination is valid (FWIW, it is customary for an Episcopal Ordination to be celebrated by many Bishops (ten or more), simply because they want to be present).

Suppose that there were invalid bishops running around in 325 AD (we don’t know that there actually were - there are no records of spurious bishops - but it could have happened). Suppose we accept the ridiculous idea that as many as 1 in 20 bishops was invalid. What is the probability of selecting three invalid bishops? It’s 20 x 20 x 20 (assuming there are at least 22 invalid bishops). That is a probability of 1 in 8000. The first generation of Bishops had 1 in 20 invalid bishops, but the second generation has only 1 in 8000 invalid bishops.

The probability of selecting three invalid bishops from such a pool is 8000 x 8000 x 8000, which is 1 in 512,000,000,000 (that’s 512 billion). As you see, the line of succession actually purifies itself over time. There have been hundreds of generations of Bishops, meaning the probability of having even one invalidly ordained bishop is staggeringly improbable. It’s what physicists call a “small but nonzero probability.” That is about the same probability that all of the air will disappear from your living room (it could happen, but it is staggeringly unlikely).

The math wins, every time. The only way the math could not win is if 2/3 + 1 of all bishops were invalid at any point in time, and Episcopal ordinations *never *had more than three consecrators (whereas it is common to have many more). For this extreme situation to occur in the twelve-year window of opportunity between the Edict of Milan and Nicea-1 is patently absurd.

It is therefore unnecessary that we know (and can prove) any Bishops episcopal lineage. We don’t need knowledge of history, or even the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to know that every Bishop has valid Apostolic succession. We know this by simple math.

 

[AdvanceAlways]

We do not know this from historical records, or from doctrine. But we DO know this from basic math. If you ever thought that Bishops were bad at math, guess again!

The Emperor Constantine signed the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, which ended persecution in the Roman Empire. Constantine himself became a Christian, and suddenly it was very fashionable (and perhaps profitable) to be a Christian (before, it would get you killed). The Church was confronted with an unprecedented wave of conversions, and possibly with the problem of some people misrepresenting themselves as Christian priests and Bishops. Credentials were difficult to verify back in those days.

The problem was not really so much about a few illicit “bishops,” but what would happen if those “bishops” “ordained” other men as “bishops” (who were not aware of the illicit nature of their “consecrators”). Suddenly, the whole Apostolic foundation of Catholic Orders could be called into question (indeed, as you have questioned).

The Church needed a solution to this problem - some way to guarantee that Episcopal Ordinations were valid, even if the validity of the consecrators could not be assured. The Church turned to mathematics.

Twelve years after the Edict of Milan, the Church convened the very first full Ecumenical Council, the great Council of Nicea. This topic was on the agenda.

Only one Bishop is needed to validly ordain another Bishop. But the very first Ecumenical Council, Nicea, imposed a rule (Canon 4) which remains in place to this day - a licit Episcopal Ordination requires at least three Consecrators. As long as just one is valid, the Ordination is valid (FWIW, it is customary for an Episcopal Ordination to be celebrated by many Bishops (ten or more), simply because they want to be present).

Suppose that there were invalid bishops running around in 325 AD (we don’t know that there actually were - there are no records of spurious bishops - but it could have happened). Suppose we accept the ridiculous idea that as many as 1 in 20 bishops was invalid. What is the probability of selecting three invalid bishops? It’s 20 x 20 x 20 (assuming there are at least 22 invalid bishops). That is a probability of 1 in 8000. The first generation of Bishops had 1 in 20 invalid bishops, but the second generation has only 1 in 8000 invalid bishops.

The probability of selecting three invalid bishops from such a pool is 8000 x 8000 x 8000, which is 1 in 512,000,000,000 (that’s 512 billion). As you see, the line of succession actually purifies itself over time. There have been hundreds of generations of Bishops, meaning the probability of having even one invalidly ordained bishop is staggeringly improbable. It’s what physicists call a “small but nonzero probability.” That is about the same probability that all of the air will disappear from your living room (it could happen, but it is staggeringly unlikely).

The math wins, every time. The only way the math could not win is if 2/3 + 1 of all bishops were invalid at any point in time, and Episcopal ordinations *never *had more than three consecrators (whereas it is common to have many more). For this extreme situation to occur in the twelve-year window of opportunity between the Edict of Milan and Nicea-1 is patently absurd.

It is therefore unnecessary that we know (and can prove) any Bishops episcopal lineage. We don’t need knowledge of history, or even the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to know that every Bishop has valid Apostolic succession. We know this by simple math.

And this is why I’m a liberal arts major who only ever took 1 credit worth of math

Great analysis, thank you!

 

[rfournier103]

Hi folks. I have a question regarding apostolic succession. I was looking at the lineage of my Bishop, which brought me all the way back to Cardinal Rebiba in the 1500s, but the line stops there with no information on who consecrated Rebiba. Since Rebiba’s line accounts for 90% of today’s Bishops, that is pretty significant, so how can we be assured that Rebiba was validly consecrated? (Thus knowing whether our Bishops today posses valid succession?)

It may be possible (if you are in the “New World”) that your Bishop’s line could cross the ocean back to Europe. Sometimes the trail gets cold over the vast expanse of the ocean…

When you come to the “last man”, that’s when the work gets tough. You may have to visit cathedrals, Church offices, museums, and who knows where else… Just takes a little legwork.

 

[cmodrmac]

it is pretty muddled isn’t it

Think of what a Pope decided with the Anglicans-here definite records in place but the Pope (Leo) I believe just decided that there was no validity =" absolutely null and void"

there are plenty of Old catholic-Lutheran and Episcopal Priests who clearly can trace their lineage back to the Catholic Church -

 

[DavidFilmer]

Think of what a Pope decided with the Anglicans-here definite records in place but the Pope (Leo) I believe just decided that there was no validity =" absolutely null and void"

That had nothing to do with the validity of the succession of Anglican bishops (which has never been, and still is not in question). We know, with absolute certainty, that every Anglican bishop (and I’m including the American Episcopal Church) today was consecrated by someone who was consecrated by someone who eventually goes back to one of the Apostles (that’s what we mean by “succession.”) Nobody doubts or questions that - it is settled theological fact. Every Anglican or Episcopal bishop today has valid succession - period. Even female Episcopal “bishops” such as Barbara Harris have valid succession. Nobody questions this (but she is clearly not a valid Bishop).

That’s because valid succession is not *enough *to guarantee valid Ordination. Every Sacrament has five required elements: minister (which is where succession comes in), subject, matter, form, and intent. If any ONE of these is lacking, the sacrament is not valid. This is also the teaching of Anglican theologians (such as Francis Hall). In the case of Orders, only one of the five requirements has anything to do with valid succession.

The Anglicans (after being heavily influenced by Calvanism) lost their Orders (which had been recognized as valid for decades) through theological changes resulting in a lack of valid intent (and probably of valid form). A “valid” Bishop (which the Anglicans had in their early days) does not ordain someone without ALSO having valid intent and form, and these were determined to be insufficient. (In the case of Barbara Harris, the ordination would further be invalidated by lack of proper subject.)

Through the Oxford movement, the Anglican Church has regained much of what it had lost, but not in time to avert disaster. By the time they recovered, there were no validly ordained Bishops (ordained with valid succession AND valid form and intent) remaining. All of their validly ordained Bishops had died out, and the Anglican Church was left with a group of laymen in Bishop’s cassocks with valid succession but invalid ordination.

 

[billcu1]

I would like to trace my confirmation back to the apostle(s) that consecrated the bishop(s) and so on back to Jesus. Can this be done? I can go back to the 1400s.

 

[DavidFilmer]

there are plenty of Old catholic-Lutheran and Episcopal Priests who clearly can trace their lineage back to the Catholic Church -

There are no Lutheran priests (Martin Luther was himself an Augustinian Friar (priest), but, not being a Bishop, he had no ability to ordain anyone).

I have previously addressed Episcopal priests, who have valid succession but lack valid ordination.

However, you also mention the Old Catholics. The priests and Bishops of the Old Catholic Church are fully recognized as valid by the (Roman) Catholic Church. As are the priests and Bishops of the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC), and (of course) the Greek Orthodox Church and various Eastern communions. There are several non-Roman Churches who reject the authority of the Pope, but which are recognized by the Romans (and the Pope) as having valid Orders. The Anglicans were once included on this list.

The Greek Orthodox Church is the second-largest Christian Faith in the world (I only learned this recently). No protestant faith (and, sadly, I must include the Anglicans in this category) outnumber them. The (Roman) Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Orthodox priests and Bishops, and they recognize the validity of ours. If I enter a Greek Orthodox Church, I genuflect before their Tabernacle, and they genuflect before ours.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Hmmm. There seems to be a lot of interest in Apostolic succession recently.

You were confirmed by a Bishop (the ordinary minister of Confirmation) or by a priest (an extraordinary - ie, valid but not ordinary - minister). So you are wondering about the Apostolic lineage of your Bishop (or the Bishop who ordained your priest).

You say you can trace your Bishop’s lineage back to the 1400’s. This is rare (and, in fact, I have never heard of any Bishop who could trace his lineage back that far - and not even close). Most Bishops can trace their lineage back a few generations, at best (and Bishops who were ordained prior to the advent of Google could perhaps trace their lineage back only to his primary Consecrator and maybe that guy’s Consecrator, but nothing farther back).

Humans place great emphasis on their genealogical lineage. There are genealogical societies that you can only join if you can prove a certain lineage (such as the Sons/Daughters of the American Revolution). I could join SAR based on my mother’s documented lineage, complete with a documented DAR serial number (but not from my father’s side, as the first Filmers did not settle in America until the late 1860s).

But Episcopal lineage does not work the same as genetic lineage. In genetics, it matters a great deal who was your father, and grandfather, and great-grandfather, and great-great (etc) grandfather. Those people define WHO you are.

Episcopal lineage, on the other hand, does not care about any of that. The ONLY thing that matters for a Bishop is whether his consecrator was a valid Bishop. That determines WHAT you are. If your consecrator was a valid Bishop, then you are a valid Bishop (assuming your consecrator had valid form, matter, and intent, and you are a Baptized male).

It is not necessary to prove that your Bishop can trace his lineage back to an Apostle. It is only necessary to prove that his consecrator (or, actually, one of his three (minimum) consecrators) can trace his lineage back to an Apostle.

The Church can prove that without producing any sort of lineage for any Bishop. The Church can prove this with math. From a recent post I made in a similar thread:

The Emperor Constantine signed the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, which ended persecution in the Roman Empire. Constantine himself became a Christian, and suddenly it was very fashionable (and perhaps profitable) to be a Christian (before, it would get you killed). The Church was confronted with an unprecedented wave of conversions, and possibly with the problem of some people misrepresenting themselves as Christian priests and Bishops. Credentials were difficult to verify back in those days.

The problem was not really so much about a few illicit “bishops,” but what would happen if those “bishops” “ordained” other men as “bishops” (who were not aware of the illicit nature of their “consecrators”). Suddenly, the whole Apostolic foundation of Catholic Orders could be called into question (indeed, as you have questioned).

The Church needed a solution to this problem - some way to guarantee that Episcopal Ordinations were valid, even if the validity of the consecrators could not be assured. The Church turned to mathematics.

Twelve years after the Edict of Milan, the Church convened the very first full Ecumenical Council, the great Council of Nicea. This topic was on the agenda.

Only one Bishop is needed to validly ordain another Bishop. But the very first Ecumenical Council, Nicea, imposed a rule (Canon 4) which remains in place to this day - a licit Episcopal Ordination requires at least three Consecrators. As long as just one is valid, the Ordination is valid (FWIW, it is customary for an Episcopal Ordination to be celebrated by many Bishops (ten or more), simply because they want to be present).

Suppose that there were invalid bishops running around in 325 AD (we don’t know that there actually were - there are no records of spurious bishops - but it could have happened). Suppose we accept the ridiculous idea that as many as 1 in 20 bishops was invalid. What is the probability of selecting three invalid bishops? It’s 20 x 20 x 20 (assuming there are at least 22 invalid bishops). That is a probability of 1 in 8000. The first generation of Bishops had 1 in 20 invalid bishops, but the second generation has only 1 in 8000 invalid bishops.

The probability of selecting three invalid bishops from such a pool is 8000 x 8000 x 8000, which is 1 in 512,000,000,000 (that’s 512 billion). As you see, the line of succession actually purifies itself over time. There have been hundreds of generations of Bishops, meaning the probability of having even one invalidly ordained bishop is staggeringly improbable. It’s what physicists call a “small but nonzero probability.” That is about the same probability that all of the air will disappear from your living room (it could happen, but it is staggeringly unlikely).

The math wins, every time. The only way the math could not win is if 2/3 + 1 of all bishops were invalid at any point in time, and Episcopal ordinations never had more than three consecrators (whereas it is common to have many more). For this extreme situation to occur in the twelve-year window of opportunity between the Edict of Milan and Nicea-1 is patently absurd.

It is therefore unnecessary that we know (and can prove) any Bishops episcopal lineage. We don’t need knowledge of history, or even the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to know that every Bishop has valid Apostolic succession. We know this by simple math.