Apostolic Succession

[lasher]

Is there any way to actually trace the pope’s apostolic succession to the first century or is this just a tradition that is believed but isn’t really provable?

 

[AdvanceAlways]

Is there any way to actually trace the pope’s apostolic succession to the first century or is this just a tradition that is believed but isn’t really provable?

The burden of proof would have to be against the claim. There is nothing which proves otherwise. We have an unbroken line of Popes back to the first century and there is no reason to believe that the Bishops who consecrated them were not ordained. The early Church Fathers wrote of the importance of sacramental form from the get-go. The fact that early on, they built in what is essentially a triple lock safeguarding a consecration is evidence enough. The same can be said for Orthodox patriarchs and Bishops.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

List of Popes

Quid Pro Quo

Is there a list of Orthodox Bishops that show a line of apostolic succession for each Patriarchate?

 

[lasher]

Thanks for the response. To clarify, I am in no way suggesting the pope does not have apostolic succession. I was curious if there was a documented list showing all the pope’s from st. Peter onward. I realize the burden of proof would be on the person suggesting otherwise, however that wasn’t my intent.

 

[malphono]

List of Popes

Quid Pro Quo

Is there a list of Orthodox Bishops that show a line of apostolic succession for each Patriarchate?

The only thing in that link is a list of names.

Frankly, I find the premise of this post to be rather offensive. The Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox, and consequently the validity (in Latin terminology) their Orders and Sacraments, has never been questioned, even by Rome itself.

 

[ProVobis]

Thanks for the response. To clarify, I am in no way suggesting the pope does not have apostolic succession.

In theory the Pope does not need apostolic succession, at least not before he’s made Pope. Papal succession (which is actually broken after he dies) is not the same thing as Apostolic Succession, which includes all valid bishops of the Church, the Orthodox, the Old Catholics, etc.

If I’m wrong, please don’t hesitate to correct me.

 

[lasher]

The only thing in that link is a list of names.

Frankly, I find the premise of this post to be rather offensive. The Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox, and consequently the validity (in Latin terminology) their Orders and Sacraments, has never been questioned, even by Rome itself.

Apologies, I did not intend to offend. I asked this same question over on OrthodoxChristianity.net.

I was trying to find out about documentation of succession and how far back it goes, not trying to suggest anything negative about Rome or the validity of her sacraments.

 

[bzkoss236]

List of Popes

Quid Pro Quo

Is there a list of Orthodox Bishops that show a line of apostolic succession for each Patriarchate?

Considering the Church teaches that the Orthodox have valid apostolic succession and therefore valid Sacraments, I would say that a list isn’t needed for their side.

And conversely, I don’t think that the Orthodox question the apostolic succession of the Pope either, seeing him as the successor to St. Peter. They just don’t affirm Papal Supremacy.

 

[malphono]

Apologies, I did not intend to offend. I asked this same question over on OrthodoxChristianity.net.

I was trying to find out about documentation of succession and how far back it goes, not trying to suggest anything negative about Rome or the validity of her sacraments.

No need to apologize. Personally, I didn’t find your OP to be offensive at all. It was another’s post to which I take offensive.

 

[ProVobis]

The only requirements to be a Pope are that he must be male and he must be Catholic.

 

[malphono]

The only requirements to be a Pope are that he must be male and he must be Catholic.

True for election, but not for enthronement. The first and primary position is that of Bishop of Rome. All other titles and honors derive therefrom. Ergo, at the time of enthronement, he must be an ordained bishop. Even if his episcopal ordination took place earlier that same morning.

 

[R_C]

Is there any way to actually trace the pope’s apostolic succession to the first century or is this just a tradition that is believed but isn’t really provable?

It is a truth taught by the Church Fathers, something that the Lord willed, and God does not change His mind. Every bishop’s apostolic succession can be traced back to the apostles, but in fact this is actually currently feasible for the bishop of Rome because a particularly accurate record has been kept.

Church Father Irenaeus writes on AD 189:

It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times …]

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition …]

Tertullian further adds in AD 200:

[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring].

If there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers

And jumping 200 years we find Jerome who states:

these clergy…in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through [their] efforts also it is that we are Christians

The bishop of Rome is not the only one whose apostolic succession has been carefully preserved. Other examples include the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria Theodoros II, the 123rd successor of Mark the Evangelist according to the known succession, or the Ecumenical Patriarch of Costantinople Bartolomeos I, 270th successor of the apostle Andrew according to the known succession.

In fact, the succession of (I think) all bishops in the Latin Church has been collected in this website. However most of them stop at Bishop Rebiba. This is because he ordained the man who would become Pope Benedict XII and who wished to ordain many bishops personally rather than delegating the task. Thus about 91% of all Catholic bishops shared this lineage. However, the ordination records of cardinal Rebiba have gone lost. We do know from tradition, however, that he himself was probably ordained by bishop Gian Pietro Carafa, later Pope Paul IV. As someone explained:

By 1541, the Catholic Church had been consecrating bishops for fifteen centuries; she has continued to consecrate bishops for five more centuries. To believe that the Rebiba botleneck threatens the integrity of the episcopal succession, one must believe that Rebiba’s consecration was invalid (or never happened), which is to say that one must believe that the Church fouled up a routine and solemn part of her core activities. That is an extraordinary proposition, and it demands proof—not simply an inference rooted in mindlessly extreme skepticism that rejects whatever cannot be affirmatively proven.

Moreover, it would have to have been an extraordinary wreck. As the podcast notes, the Church has (so far as we can tell) always consecrated bishops with a principal consecrator and co-consecrators. Card. Santorio was consecrated by Rebiba and bishops Annibale Caracciolo and Giacomo de Giacomelli; neither was consecrated by Rebiba, so unless both of them were invalidly consecrated, too, by sheer coincidence, Santorio was validly-consecrated, and thus his lineage remains intact. Likewise, move another step up the chain. Card. Bernerio was consecrated by Santorio and Bishop Giulio Masetti and Ottaviano Cardinal Paravicini (whose principal consecrator was St. Charles Cardinal Borromeo); we don’t have documentation follow their succession back too far, either, but we know that Rebiba wasn’t involved

 

[ProVobis]

True for election, but not for enthronement. The first and primary position is that of Bishop of Rome. All other titles and honors derive therefrom. Ergo, at the time of enthronement, he must be an ordained bishop. Even if his episcopal ordination took place earlier that same morning.

Brings up this interesting question (in my mind anyway): Who would approve of such ordination if there is no Pope?

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, I already got that from malphono. Thanks.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The only thing in that link is a list of names.

Frankly, I find the premise of this post to be rather offensive. The Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox, and consequently the validity (in Latin terminology) their Orders and Sacraments, has never been questioned, even by Rome itself.

You should not find the premise of my post offensive. In the same manner that the OP requested a trace for us, I am asking of one from him.

If you see my posts, you’d see and understand that I am aware of the succession for the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.

Thus, my quid pro quo.

The asking for the same list of names in no way implies that I am questioning the apostolic succession but requesting the same information from the OP.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Considering the Church teaches that the Orthodox have valid apostolic succession and therefore valid Sacraments, I would say that a list isn’t needed for their side.

And conversely, I don’t think that the Orthodox question the apostolic succession of the Pope either, seeing him as the successor to St. Peter. They just don’t affirm Papal Supremacy.

I already replied to malphono.

I am indeed very interested in a list like ours, still.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Apologies, I did not intend to offend. I asked this same question over on OrthodoxChristianity.net.

I was trying to find out about documentation of succession and how far back it goes, not trying to suggest anything negative about Rome or the validity of her sacraments.

You did not.

My wording seemed to “rub” the wrong way malphono and bz

 

[JohnAlex]

Brings up this interesting question (in my mind anyway): Who would approve of such ordination if there is no Pope?

From English Wikipedia:
… According to Canon 355 (from the Latin Code of Canon Law 1983), if the newly elected Supreme Pontiff is not already a bishop, it is the right of the Dean to ordain him as such. …

The Dean of the College of Cardinals is, per Canon Law 350, section 4, has “the title of the diocese of Ostia, together with that of any other church to which he already has a title,” such as his suburbicarian diocese. This has been the case since 1914, by decree of Pope Pius X—previous deans had given up their prior suburbicarian see for the joint title of Ostia and Velletri, which were separated in that same 1914 decree.

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_of_the_College_of_Cardinals)

Therefore I conclude that when the newly elected Pope is not yet consecrated Bishop then his line would be under the Cardinal Dean. The Cardinal Dean is always a Bishop of the Suburbicarian See of Ostia, and as such is always a Bishop. The See of Ostia remains one of the fastest-filled vacancies in the world.