Can we trace any priest back to Jesus historically?

[romesweethome]

Can we take any ordained catholic priest and trace the line of bishops and the laying on of hands all the way back to Jesus and the apostles historically? Does the church have the majority of these ordinations on record back to the early centuries?

 

[MarkThompson]

Can we take any ordained catholic priest and trace the line of bishops and the laying on of hands all the way back to Jesus and the apostles historically? Does the church have the majority of these ordinations on record back to the early centuries?

No. Records are pretty good going back to the 1500s or so, though.

 

[Zacdecat]

Does not the pope count?

 

[JamestheOlder]

Can we take any ordained catholic priest and trace the line of bishops and the laying on of hands all the way back to Jesus and the apostles historically? Does the church have the majority of these ordinations on record back to the early centuries?

What priest would you like to trace?

If it would be someone in the modern era, it should be possible to trace them back to the Bishop who ordained them, and trace that Bishop back to the Pope who appointed him. Once you get back to the Pope, it’s a rather straight shot back to Peter.

I would allow that some Uniate and Orthodox churches actually have priestly ordination records back a good distance. How far the Vatican records go would be difficult to ascertain, since the ordination of priests might only be kept by diocese, while the record of Bishops would date much further back. It would be a good question to pose on Zenit.

 

[MarkThompson]

What priest would you like to trace?

If it would be someone in the modern era, it should be possible to trace them back to the Bishop who ordained them, and trace that Bishop back to the Pope who appointed him. Once you get back to the Pope, it’s a rather straight shot back to Peter.

It does not work this way. First, even when the pope appoints someone bishop, it is very rare that he actually carries out the consecration himself. Usually bishops are consecrated by bishops of nearby dioceses, the provincial metropolitan, and so on.

Second, the concept of the pope’s being in charge of episcopal appointments is relatively recent, and not actually universal even today. Historically, there has been a wide variety of ways that bishops get names, ranging from acclaim by the people of the city, to appointment by a powerful duke, to election by the canons of the cathedral.

Third, it is not a “straight shot back to Peter.” Popes do not name or consecrate their successors. John Paul II did not appoint Benedict XVI pope, and had not consecrated him. Benedict XVI was consecrated by Josef Stangl, bishop of Würzburg, Germany. Who consecrated him? Josef Schneider, Archbishop of Bamberg. And him? Joseph Wendel, Archbishop of Munich and Freising. And so on. There is no “chain of popes” in the sense that would be relevant to the OP’s question.

As to Vatican records, it’s not like we have a set of microfiche from, you know, 500 AD. The oldest document is from the end of the 700s, and very few records remain from before the 12th century. Even as late as 1810, Napoleon hauled the entire Vatican Secret Archive to Paris. When the archive was sent back to Rome in 1815 under Louis XVIII, whole wagonloads were lost in transit, for instance swept away by the River Taro. And the cost of shipment was so great that the officials in charge of overseeing it from the Paris end just decided to burn thousands of documents that they didn’t consider important, and gave away thousands more to be used by Parisian butchers to wrap meat. True story.

 

[odhiambo]

Can we take any ordained catholic priest and trace the line of bishops and the laying on of hands all the way back to Jesus and the apostles historically? Does the church have the majority of these ordinations on record back to the early centuries?

You can trace all Catholic priests through the bishops who ordinate them, to the Pope who appoints the Bishops, and then you can trace the popes back to the first Pope, Saint Peter and then to Christ who made Saint Peter the Rock on which His Church is.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

You can trace all Catholic priests through the bishops who ordinate them, to the Pope who appoints the Bishops, and then you can trace the popes back to the first Pope, Saint Peter and then to Christ who made Saint Peter the Rock on which His Church is.

So the Church always existed in it’s current form? From Peter on…?

Do you mean this historically?

Or is this a spiritual belief of some kind?

Because the very first problem that would come to mind is related to the trinity. There’s no reason to think that the first Christians believed in the trinity. The Church had to compromise with the trinity in order to pull in the tri-theists, the modalists, mystery religion practitioners and who knows who else.

Or what of the argument between the Gospel authors about Jewish vs. Gentile Christianity? Which side of that would the Pope have been placed on?

Therefore, I would have a really hard time accepting that the leadership could be traced linearly.

 

[MarkThompson]

You can trace all Catholic priests through the bishops who ordinate them, to the Pope who appoints the Bishops, and then you can trace the popes back to the first Pope, Saint Peter and then to Christ who made Saint Peter the Rock on which His Church is.

Read my post above yours, please.

So the Church always existed in it’s current form? From Peter on…?

Do you mean this historically?

Or is this a spiritual belief of some kind?

Because the very first problem that would come to mind is related to the trinity. There’s no reason to think that the first Christians believed in the trinity. The Church had to compromise with the trinity in order to pull in the tri-theists, the modalists, mystery religion practitioners and who knows who else.

Or what of the argument between the Gospel authors about Jewish vs. Gentile Christianity? Which side of that would the Pope have been placed on?

Therefore, I would have a really hard time accepting that the leadership could be traced linearly.

Certainly, Catholic doctrine did not fall from the sky in a neatly bound catechism at Pentecost. It took several centuries to really get fleshed out. As Catholics, however, we believe that the Holy Spirit, which Jesus promised he would send after his ascension to continue teaching, operates through the divinely-instituted Church which Jesus founded while he was on earth. One should not puzzle that the entirely of Catholic teaching was not comprehended in, say, 40 AD.

That is a separate question from the Apostolic succession of episcopal orders, though, which is (as best I can tell) what this thread is about. It has always been understood, since the very earliest times, that this was done in a rite with the laying on of hands and so on, and people have always taken it quite seriously. We may not have written records of it, but there is no reason at all to think that the practice was abandoned. It would be like if we in the United States lost most of our records from the early 1800s, and someone said, “So how do we know that those presidents back then ever took the oath of office? The succession of presidents is therefore dubious; it cannot be traced linearly back to George Washington.”

 

[Like]

I am very confused now! If the Church claims to be the Church that Jesus instituted & Peter is the 1st pope of the only ONE, TRUE CHURCH, How come we can’t trace from present day back to St. Peter?

I’m I missing something here??

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I am very confused now! If the Church claims to be the Church that Jesus instituted & Peter is the 1st pope of the only ONE, TRUE CHURCH, How come we can’t trace from present day back to St. Peter?

I’m I missing something here??

Well, the truth is insanely complicated. There were thousands upon thousands of Christian groups. What we know as the Church today was an amalgamation of many of these groups (though not all, many persisted even before the reformation).

I would say that some here DO believe that you can do that, I personally have some doubts here and there. Specifically, I’m saying that the Church that existed at the outset (if it did at all) was totally different than the Church of today, so I don’t see how it could count necessarily. (But then, as a previous poster pointed out, the differences might not be important to him/her because of the way the Church evolves). Additionally, I’m sure you had moments of disputed Popehood.

Still, don’t take anyone’s word for it, do your own research.

 

[Like]

Well, the truth is insanely complicated. There were thousands upon thousands of Christian groups. What we know as the Church today was an amalgamation of many of these groups (though not all, many persisted even before the reformation).

I would say that some here DO believe that you can do that, I personally have some doubts here and there. Specifically, I’m saying that the Church that existed at the outset (if it did at all) was totally different than the Church of today, so I don’t see how it could count necessarily. (But then, as a previous poster pointed out, the differences might not be important to him/her because of the way the Church evolves). Additionally, I’m sure you had moments of disputed Popehood.

Still, don’t take anyone’s word for it, do your own research.

HUH!,

I think this old man needs to go to bed & check this out in the morning.lol

Mahalo!

 

[Skeptic92]

I am very confused now! If the Church claims to be the Church that Jesus instituted & Peter is the 1st pope of the only ONE, TRUE CHURCH, How come we can’t trace from present day back to St. Peter?

I’m I missing something here??

We know who held the Seat of Peter as the Bishop of Rome since St Peter, however tracing priestly/episcopal ordinations back to the Apostles, is like tracing back 5m of silly string, plus the records will go very hazy at some point, probably Pre-Renaissance. However I would argue that if you can trace an ordination to one of the 5 Patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria) you would have a rather straight shot back to the Apostles.

 

[Like]

We know who held the Seat of Peter as the Bishop of Rome since St Peter, however tracing priestly/episcopal ordinations back to the Apostles, is like tracing back 5m of silly string, plus the records will go very hazy at some point, probably Pre-Renaissance. However I would argue that if you can trace an ordination to one of the 5 Patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria) you would have a rather straight shot back to the Apostles.

OK, I forgot the op’s question, I got confused, I think leaving the priest tracing thing aside, I hope we can trace through the bishops?

 

[Skeptic92]

OK, I forgot the op’s question, I got confused, I think leaving the priest tracing thing aside, I hope we can trace through the bishops?

The Bishops are quite easy to be honest, every Bishop can trace his ordination history back to missionaries who were appointed bishops by the Pope (and the first bishops were normally consecrated by the Pope in Rome, or one of the 5 Patriarchs in there respective See), and since the succession of the Bishops will all trace back to the Pope (or one of the other Patriarchs) at some point, Apostolic Succession is guarranteed based on the Succession of Peter, Andrew, James or Mark.

 

[beehumble]

Read my post above yours, please.

Certainly, Catholic doctrine did not fall from the sky in a neatly bound catechism at Pentecost.

Actually it did fall from the sky in a manner of speaking, at Pentecost.

From Act 2:

When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together. And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were. Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them. And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.

John 14:16-20,26
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always,
the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live.
On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you.

The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.

The disciples at Pentecost received the Deposit of the Faith - all Truth - at Pentecost, and where Peter’s shadow could raise they dead. They became perfected, and thenceforth had full knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures, and our doctrines, which are the doctrines of Truth, of God. While things like the Assumption were not declared dogma until the last century, knowledge of it was there from the beginning.

Thus we have Apostolic Tradition.

(And it is my understanding that the laying of hands on bishops can be traced back to the time of the Apostles. I think I read this years ago in Keating’s book Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by "Bible Christians but can’t quite remember - anyone else read his book?)

As for Napoleon, it is my understanding that the main harm he did was causing hte archives to become all “jumbled” up, instead of neatly organized as they were before he moved them. Some of it was lost; but much of it is there just mixed up - countless thousands of papers are all mixed together.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The ordination of every modern day Catholic Priest & Bishop (including ) is traceable back to . Go to the bottom of the LEFT column in the link provided. You will find no Catholic Priest or Bishop that does not originate with in the 16th century.

 

[trinitybeliever]

So the Church always existed in it’s current form? From Peter on…?

Do you mean this historically?

Or is this a spiritual belief of some kind?

Because the very first problem that would come to mind is related to the trinity. There’s no reason to think that the first Christians believed in the trinity. The Church had to compromise with the trinity in order to pull in the tri-theists, the modalists, mystery religion practitioners and who knows who else.

Or what of the argument between the Gospel authors about Jewish vs. Gentile Christianity? Which side of that would the Pope have been placed on?

Therefore, I would have a really hard time accepting that the leadership could be traced linearly.

Someone is making it up as he goes…

 

[MarkThompson]

OK, I forgot the op’s question, I got confused, I think leaving the priest tracing thing aside, I hope we can trace through the bishops?

We do not have the records to be able to do that. In many cases, we don’t even have records of who the bishops were, let alone who might have consecrated them.

Actually it did fall from the sky in a manner of speaking, at Pentecost.

And in another, more accurate, manner of speaking it did not. This is a little like saying that the entirety of U.S. Supreme Court caselaw came neatly bound out of Philadelphia in 1789, because the Constitution says, “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

As for Napoleon, it is my understanding that the main harm he did was causing hte archives to become all “jumbled” up, instead of neatly organized as they were before he moved them. Some of it was lost; but much of it is there just mixed up - countless thousands of papers are all mixed together.

Most of the damage was done shipping the archives back to Rome. But you don’t have to take my word for it. In any event, it’s not as though the archive ever contained some record of, you know, the consecration of every bishop in northwestern Gaul in the sixth century. That sort of thing has never existed.

 

[JamestheOlder]

And in another, more accurate, manner of speaking it did not. This is a little like saying that the entirety of U.S. Supreme Court caselaw came neatly bound out of Philadelphia in 1789, because the Constitution says, “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

(snipped)

QUOTE]

And in another manner of speaking, it did indeed fall out of the sky on the back of the Holy Spirit. It is Church teaching that all revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle…presumably, John. Yes, there were clarifications made by all the major councils of the Church, but the “laying on of hands”, ordination, was present at the earliest moment of the Church…need I quote Acts?

You can google an unbroken list of the Popes, beginning with St. Peter. Yes, every bishop could be traced back to the Pope which appointed him. That the written records are missing is immaterial…you either believe in apostolic succession, or you don’t. Have you still got your eighth grade report card (actually, I do) proving you could enter high school? Or do you BELIEVE in a progression of facts…that maybe now you ARE a college graduate, so you MUST have had that report card? What if someone said “Prove your eighth grade grades”?

This is becoming ridiculous…bye.

 

[MarkThompson]

And in another manner of speaking, it did indeed fall out of the sky on the back of the Holy Spirit.

You’ve got to be joking.

You can google an unbroken list of the Popes, beginning with St. Peter.

Actually, even some of the popes are a bit iffy. Why don’t you look into the history of Pope St. Anacletus and then get back to me.

Yes, every bishop could be traced back to the Pope which appointed him.

Argh. Once again, appointment ≠ consecration. And, for that matter, lots (maybe the majority) of bishops over the course of history have not even been appointed by the pope in the first place. The issue of appointment is a complete red herring here.

That the written records are missing is immaterial…you either believe in apostolic succession, or you don’t. Have you still got your eighth grade report card (actually, I do) proving you could enter high school? Or do you BELIEVE in a progression of facts…that maybe now you ARE a college graduate, so you MUST have had that report card? What if someone said “Prove your eighth grade grades”?

At last, this is my point. If the records are destroyed (or maybe never existed, because your teacher just gave grades verbally), it does mean that you didn’t attend eighth grade. We do not have records of the apostolic succession of bishops back to Peter, and yet I do believe in it. I’m not sure why this is so hard to grasp. The two prevailing theories on this thread seem to be “since it is true, there must be records of it” and “succession is proved by ‘appointment’ from any pope, and then a ‘straight shot of popes’ [not that the popes even appoint or consecrate each other, but whatever]”. These theories are just objectively incorrect.

Maybe some of the confusion is that people don’t know what apostolic succession is, so they think that if Benedict XVI is the successor to John Paul II as Pope, then you have an apostolic succession from John Paul II to Benedict XVI. No. Apostolic succession has nothing to do with succeeding someone to a particular office, including the papacy. Apostolic succession comes through episcopal consecration, using the laying on of hands. As I explained above, Benedict XVI’s apostolic succession comes through Josef Stangl, bishop of Würzburg, who ordained him, and has absolutely no connection to John Paul II.

This is becoming ridiculous…bye.

You have said so.