Apostolic Succession

[johnpauls]

I see other topics in this forum mention Apostolic Succession from Peter to the current Pope as a fact of history. I find that interesting, since history clearly states something very much different. To define “Succession”:

Succession is the act or process of following in order or sequence…“usually in a clearly defined order.”
Wikipedia ]

There is certainly not a “clearly defined” order to the succession of Popes. There has been more than one Pope at a time, there have been anti-Popes, and there have been Popes who have been excommunicated. Sure, through revisionist type history Catholics have a written a kind of linage back to Peter - but even admitted church history gives a much different picture.

Are there Catholics who simply don’t know this truth?

 

[campeador]

What ‘Truth’ do you think Catholics don’t know about?

It took me all of 3 seconds to pull up a list of Popes off the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

 

[wmscott]

I see other topics in this forum mention Apostolic Succession from Peter to the current Pope as a fact of history. I find that interesting, since history clearly states something very much different. To define “Succession”:

Succession is the act or process of following in order or sequence…“usually in a clearly defined order.”
Wikipedia ]

There is certainly not a “clearly defined” order to the succession of Popes. There has been more than one Pope at a time, there have been anti-Popes, and there have been Popes who have been excommunicated. Sure, through revisionist type history Catholics have a written a kind of linage back to Peter - but even admitted church history gives a much different picture.

Are there Catholics who simply don’t know this truth?

Is there a question here or are you just pointing out just how ignorant Catholics are about their Church and it’s history.

 

[ChadS]

I see other topics in this forum mention Apostolic Succession from Peter to the current Pope as a fact of history. I find that interesting, since history clearly states something very much different. To define “Succession”:

Succession is the act or process of following in order or sequence…“usually in a clearly defined order.”
Wikipedia ]

There is certainly not a “clearly defined” order to the succession of Popes. There has been more than one Pope at a time, there have been anti-Popes, and there have been Popes who have been excommunicated. Sure, through revisionist type history Catholics have a written a kind of linage back to Peter - but even admitted church history gives a much different picture.

Are there Catholics who simply don’t know this truth?

I think you need to realize that apostolic succession is a little bit different than the list of who was pope and when. Strictly speaking apostolic succession is the authority passed on by the apostles to the next bishops who in turn passed it on. So, Cardinal Ratzinger has valid apostolic succession long before he ever became pope.

ChadS

 

[johnpauls]

Is there a question here or are you just pointing out just how ignorant Catholics are about their Church and it’s history.

I guess I hear the statement about the succession continually, referenced as a “historical fact” that someone can take great comfort in knowing. Though you can get a list of Popes back to Peter off the internet, the reality of that succession is far from clear and clean during certain periods of history. The term succession may not be accurate. I guess you could say there is an official list of Popes back to Peter…but hardly anything else.

It was not apparent to me that I needed to have a clear “question” to post in the forums. So this is just something I was posting to see what the response would be…and if there is something on the subject I am missing (which is normally the case).

 

[wmscott]

I guess I hear the statement about the succession continually, referenced as a “historical fact” that someone can take great comfort in knowing. Though you can get a list of Popes back to Peter off the internet, the reality of that succession is far from clear and clean during certain periods of history. The term succession may not be accurate. I guess you could say there is an official list of Popes back to Peter…but hardly anything else.

It was not apparent to me that I needed to have a clear “question” to post in the forums. So this is just something I was posting to see what the response would be…and if there is something on the subject I am missing (which is normally the case).

Do you have some documentation that shows a breakdown or refutes the line of succession for the Vicar of Christ that differs from what the Catholic Church maintains? If so please present it here for us to review.

 

[ChadS]

I guess I hear the statement about the succession continually, referenced as a “historical fact” that someone can take great comfort in knowing. Though you can get a list of Popes back to Peter off the internet, the reality of that succession is far from clear and clean during certain periods of history. The term succession may not be accurate. I guess you could say there is an official list of Popes back to Peter…but hardly anything else.

It was not apparent to me that I needed to have a clear “question” to post in the forums. So this is just something I was posting to see what the response would be…and if there is something on the subject I am missing (which is normally the case).

If you search online the episcopal lineage of the other historic and ancient sees are available. That includes information on Alexandria and Antioch and the others. Just like Rome going back to Peter these sees also trace their way back to St. Luke and others.

Here are some links you might find interesting concerning the lineages of our modern bishops.

catholic-hierarchy.org/

mysite.verizon.net/res7gdmc/aposccs/

ChadS

 

[CMatt25]

Do you have some documentation that shows a breakdown or refutes the line of succession for the Vicar of Christ that differs from what the Catholic Church maintains? If so please present it here for us to review.

Yes.

For example an Episcopal priest has informed me, “Roman Catholics can be received into the Episcopal Church because we are both confirmed in the apostolic succession of bishops”.

So obviously if you did not place faith in the Catholic Church and were Episcopalian for instance, as the OP said, you would have a different type of lineage history than that which Catholics have written.

You don’t need to review it for me however because I understand your faith remains in the Catholic Church.

 

[Stephen168]

Do you have some documentation that shows a breakdown or refutes the line of succession for the Vicar of Christ that differs from what the Catholic Church maintains?

Yes.

If so please present it here for us to review.

 

[CMatt25]

Stephen168:
I’m not Episcopalian. But if the Episcopal Church for example says they’re in succession and thus has a different list, then while I know you won’t accept it based on your faith, I guess check out their documentation if you’re truly interested.

 

[campeador]

I’m not Episcopalian. But if the Episcopal Church for example says they’re in succession and thus has a different list, then while I know you won’t accept it based on your faith, I guess check out their documentation if you’re truly interested.

So, you can’t provide documentation, or you won’t?

 

[Stephen168]

I’m not Episcopalian. But if the Episcopal Church for example says they’re in succession and thus has a different list, then while I know you won’t accept it based on your faith, I guess check out their documentation if you’re truly interested.

So when you said "yes, " you have documentation that refutes the line of succession for the Vicar of Christ that differs from what the Catholic Church maintains; you lied.

 

[wmscott]

I’m not Episcopalian. But if the Episcopal Church for example says they’re in succession and thus has a different list, then while I know you won’t accept it based on your faith, I guess check out their documentation if you’re truly interested.

This still does not change the fact that the Catholic Church does maintain a historically accurate list of Popes all the way back to St Peter. I could care less if the OP is coming from a perspective opposite of what the Catholic Church teaches, if the OP is going to make an assertion as blatant as what was posted then it is incumbent upon him to prove his assertion. Provide the documentation! Otherwise it is at best pure speculation and at worst nothing more than an anti-Catholic falsehood. This is just my opinion, but I feel the objective of the OP is more to malign Catholics and assert that we are ignorant of our faith and history. Like we have never seen this tripe before and disproved its very concept.

 

[CMatt25]

So when you said "yes, " you have documentation that refutes the line of succession for the Vicar of Christ that differs from what the Catholic Church maintains; you lied.

Lied? Excuse me? I have right here in front of me what I received written from the Episcopalian priest and quoted. If you need further documentation from, for example the Episcopal Church you can look into it yourself. But as Wmscott said he couldn’t care less. Which is why I earlier said there was no need to review it for me.

God bless and peace.

 

[Stephen168]

Lied?

Yes, you do not have a list of the 260+ Vicars of Christ (Bishops of Rome, Popes) which differs from what the Catholic Church maintains.

 

[Contarini]

I see other topics in this forum mention Apostolic Succession from Peter to the current Pope as a fact of history. I find that interesting, since history clearly states something very much different. To define “Succession”:

Succession is the act or process of following in order or sequence…“usually in a clearly defined order.”
Wikipedia ]

It’s highly odd to take your definition from Wikipedia instead of from Catholics. You need to let Catholics define what they mean by “succession”–otherwise you aren’t arguing with the Catholic position at all.

There is certainly not a “clearly defined” order to the succession of Popes. There has been more than one Pope at a time, there have been anti-Popes, and there have been Popes who have been excommunicated.

In the last case, excommunicated by whom? I’m pretty sure that any such “excommunicated Popes,” if validly excommunicated (by a Council, for instance), were antipopes. And at least since the second century, when there have been more than one pope at a time, all but one of them were, again, antipopes (at least by the consensus of later Catholicism).

So your case boils down to two facts:

1. There have been antipopes. This is irrelevant to the truth of the Catholic position, and I’m puzzled as to why you think otherwise.
2. According to the majority of modern historians, there probably was not a single bishop of Rome until about half-way through the second century. This is not certain, but it is somewhat probable. I don’t think this, even if true, necessarily refutes the Catholic position, but it’s worth discussing.

Sure, through revisionist type history Catholics have a written a kind of linage back to Peter

I’m not sure what you mean by “revisionist type history.” Arguably it’s the position presently held by most church historians that is “revisionist,” in the sense that it questions the conventional lists given by Irenaeus and others.

But I’m not sure that the word “revisionist” is doing any honest work here. It seems to be just a slur.

• but even admitted church history gives a much different picture.

You’re speaking (and if you’ll excuse me for saying so, this is a fallacy into which folks who aren’t historians often fall) as if “church history” were some sort of person who could speak. But in fact church history is a collection of evidence, much of it not entirely clear.

Edwin

 

[SyCarl]

What about differences about the first successors as given by various church fathers?

[post]7555420[/post]

 

[CMatt25]

Yes, you do not have a list of the 260+ Vicars of Christ (Bishops of Rome, Popes) which differs from what the Catholic Church maintains.

First off the title of the thread was Apostolic Succession at the time I was writing. And it was in that light in which I was writing. And as Chad said “you need to realize that apostolic succession is a little bit different than the list of who was pope”.

I would also add to believe the list the Catholic Church maintains of apostolic succession, one must hold to the faith there was/is never a need for Christ to reform His Church in order to keep the gates from prevailing, that the Popes or broader list of apostolic successors maintained by the Catholic Church have never strayed, bearing the good fruits we shall know them by, and that they have continued to this day to be Vicars of Christ and true apostolic successors. So it’s not as much a list written as it is faith.

But nevertheless in consideration of the Apostle Paul’s words, I am not going to continue this argument with you over doubtful points. Again God bless and peace.

 

[CMatt25]

What about differences about the first successors as given by various church fathers?

[post]7555420[/post]

SyCarl, interesting if ECFs had different lists. The thread you linked to appears a long one. Did you ever get an answer?

 

[campeador]

SyCarl, interesting if ECFs had different lists. The thread you linked to appears a long one. Did you ever get an answer?

Easy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Linus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I

You’d think the “bad ol’ Catholic Church” would have destroyed some record of this discrepancy in a conspiracy driven world…