Apostolic Succession

[CutlerB]

I have seen a quote from Jesuit John L. McKenzie in his book The Roman Catholic Church that states on page 4:

… historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession of church authority.

Is that correct, and if so, how do we know that the bishops are still in the successional line?

 

[Michael1978]

A partial sentence from one paragraph in one book does not cast doubt on apostolic succession. What is the context of that line?

 

[Rainaldo]

Taken out of context, that is correct. We do not have documentation of *all *lineages of all bishops.

That’s not really a problem, because each lineage terminates either in an apostle or in a bishop whose apostolic succession is unquestioned, even if the records have been lost, or were never kept.

 

[CutlerB]

A partial sentence from one paragraph in one book does not cast doubt on apostolic succession. What is the context of that line?

I can’t find more than a about 1 sentence before and after the sentence. Google Books shows only a part of it and I can’t find another site with the context. It may well be as you say though, so if someone knows, that would be helpful.

 

[Gods_Peace]

I can’t find more than a about 1 sentence before and after the sentence. Google Books shows only a part of it and I can’t find another site with the context. It may well be as you say though, so if someone knows, that would be helpful.

Well, You need to read what Jesus said, and if it is still surviving, than cast no doubt. God Bless you On your Journey…

 

[Gods_Peace]

I can’t find more than a about 1 sentence before and after the sentence. Google Books shows only a part of it and I can’t find another site with the context. It may well be as you say though, so if someone knows, that would be helpful.

Well, You need to read what Jesus said, and if it is still surviving, than cast no doubt. God Bless you On your Journey…

 

[CutlerB]

I’ve searched everything again, but I can’t anywhere find a complete quote. The only place the sentence occurs is on fairly anti-Catholic sites. But if anyone has the book, or does find it somewhere, he might wish to post it here.

 

[MarkThompson]

I have seen a quote from Jesuit John L. McKenzie in his book The Roman Catholic Church that states on page 4:

Is that correct, and if so, how do we know that the bishops are still in the successional line?

We’ve previously discussed this issue (though not this precise quotation) in this thread and this thread (I would, ahem, humbly recommend my posts in those threads ). From one of those posts of mine, I would suggest this as a summation of the issue:
In other words, can we prove that one of the Apostles consecrated some bishop, who consecrated some bishop, who consecrated some bishop, … etc. etc. for twenty centuries …, who consecrated the bishop that ordained this particular priest? Unfortunately, we do not have the records to allow us to do this. However, we believe it did happen – that every bishop today was consecrated by somebody, who was consecrated by somebody, who … etc. etc., who was consecrated by one of the Apostles.

Why do we believe it without documentary proof? For two main reasons: (1) the evidence we do have shows that people have always taken the issue of apostolic succession very seriously, so there is no reason to think that they just gave up caring about it for a few of the centuries from which we don’t have records; and (2) because we believe that the Church is divinely instituted and guided by the Holy Spirit (and “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”), we believe that God would not have allowed all our bishops and priests to have fallen into invalidity at some point in the distant past.

 

[Rainaldo]

We’ve previously discussed this issue (though not this precise quotation) in this thread and this thread (I would, ahem, humbly recommend my posts in those threads ). From one of those posts of mine, I would suggest this as a summation of the issue:In other words, can we prove that one of the Apostles consecrated some bishop, who consecrated some bishop, who consecrated some bishop, … etc. etc. for twenty centuries …, who consecrated the bishop that ordained this particular priest? Unfortunately, we do not have the records to allow us to do this. However, we believe it did happen – that every bishop today was consecrated by somebody, who was consecrated by somebody, who … etc. etc., who was consecrated by one of the Apostles.

Why do we believe it without documentary proof? For two main reasons: (1) the evidence we do have shows that people have always taken the issue of apostolic succession very seriously, so there is no reason to think that they just gave up caring about it for a few of the centuries from which we don’t have records; and (2) because we believe that the Church is divinely instituted and guided by the Holy Spirit (and “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”), we believe that God would not have allowed all our bishops and priests to have fallen into invalidity at some point in the distant past.

Yes, it’s on the level of saying that humanity died out in 450 AD and spontaneously re-evolved in 500 AD because we have no records of any family trees spanning that gap.

 

[pablope]

I have seen a quote from Jesuit John L. McKenzie in his book The Roman Catholic Church that states on page 4:

Is that correct, and if so, how do we know that the bishops are still in the successional line?

What the quote probably means is…that written records have been ravaged by time…are lost to wear and tear…time, war, floods, the forces of nature…a pope also transferred the seat of the papacy to Avignon for a few years, taking a lot of archives…and when the pope went back to Rome…went the records too…and a chunk were lost in transit.

How do we know the bishops are still in the successional line? We have a verified list of popes…from which the bishops’ lineage flow forth.

If there was, or if there is any doubt, the pope could re-ordain every bishop and cardinal all over the world.

 

[CutlerB]

What the quote probably means is…that written records have been ravaged by time…are lost to wear and tear…time, war, floods, the forces of nature…a pope also transferred the seat of the papacy to Avignon for a few years, taking a lot of archives…and when the pope went back to Rome…went the records too…and a chunk were lost in transit.

How do we know the bishops are still in the successional line? We have a verified list of popes…from which the bishops’ lineage flow forth.

If there was, or if there is any doubt, the pope could re-ordain every bishop and cardinal all over the world.

Sure? What if the people who ordained the pope weren’t validly ordained?

 

[pablope]

Sure? What if the people who ordained the pope weren’t validly ordained?

The pope is already ordained…prior to becoming a pope. He is elected by cardinals…who have been ordained before by pope xxxx…who were ordained before by Pope xxxx…who were ordained before by Pope xxxx…who were ordained before by pope xxxx…tracing the line of popes all the way to Peter.

Let me put it this way…popes ordain bishops…who ordain priests…then some priests become bishops…ordained by 3 bishops…some become archbishops…some become cardinals…and the cardinals elect the pope’s successor…(nowadays…from one of the cardinals).

It is a never ending cycle.

Also as a safeguard…following the confusion at the end of the Roman persecution in AD 300 or so…the CC instituted a rule that for a bishop, there should be at least 3 bishops ordaining him…such wisdom of the CC, guided by the HS…guaranteeing that the gates of hell shall not prevail.

 

[inkaneer]

I have seen a quote from Jesuit John L. McKenzie in his book The Roman Catholic Church that states on page 4:

Is that correct, and if so, how do we know that the bishops are still in the successional line?

I did some Google searching and found this entry. Someone had written to EWTN about Fr. John L. McKenzie, S.J. This \inquiry was answered by Fr. John Echert:

"John L. McKenzie, SJ
Question from Rosemarie on 1/5/2001:

'I have two books in my possession by this Bible scholar. I’ve never read them, in fact I’m not even sure how I acquired them!

I was wondering whether I should read these books. Was/is Fr. McKenzie faithful or a dissident? A blurb on the dust jacket of one book says that Time Magazine called him “the nation’s most controversial and quotable Catholic theologian”. I guess that doesn’t bode well, but I wanted your expert opinion. Thank you and God bless.’

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 1/18/2001:
‘Add to what Time Magazine said of this Jesuit an endorsement by the National Catholic Reporter on another work of his and you have the picture. From what I have read of Fr. John McKenzie, I do not recommend him. While not having extensive contact with his works, I have read enough to know that he has problems with biblical inerrancy and ecclesiastical infallibility, the basic historicity of the Gospels, and proposes ideas which many would regard as “Modernist.” I occasionally use his Dictionary of the Bible, with the proviso that it not be principally a theological matter which I am researching.’"

Not a ringing endorsement I would say.