Gaps in the Papacy

[Apryl]

I know that we have Apostolic Succession, and there is this ‘unbroken’ listing of Popes since St. Peter, but there are some gaps in the listing that appear to be about 2 years long.

Not to mention, the time from the death of one Pope to the consecration (?) of the next.

How do we explain this? or better yet, can you just explain it to me?

 

[1ke]

I don’t understand what your question is.

 

[Apryl]

I don’t understand what your question is.

Ok

We have had a succession of popes, from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. An “Uninterrupted” string of leaders of the church, Vicars of Rope.

But, if one were to look at the Chronological listing of popes from St. Peter, there are times where one pope dies in one year, and the next pope dies as much as two calendar years later.

I want to say ‘I understand’ that there has been no break, but how does one explain the gaps? What is the answer to ‘unterrupted’, when many today are aware that when the Pope dies, no one steps in until the College of Cardinals has voted on his successor… so there is some time when there really is no one in that seat.

How do we explain the time(s) when there is no one in the seat?

 

[WMM]

I know that we have Apostolic Succession, and there is this ‘unbroken’ listing of Popes since St. Peter, but there are some gaps in the listing that appear to be about 2 years long.

Not to mention, the time from the death of one Pope to the consecration (?) of the next.

How do we explain this? or better yet, can you just explain it to me?

***What you are referring to is known as “Sede vacante”, the time between popes.

It is true during the middle ages, when transportation was difficult, that it took a long while to gather a quorum of bishops to elect a new pope.

The Church was never left for a time without a current Pope or an effort by the Church to elect a new Pope.

That does not mean that the line is broken, for during the time of “Sede vacante”, the Church was actively working to elect a new pope.

Even in modern times it may take weeks to hold a Conclave and elect the new Holy Father.***

 

[Hesychios]

I know that we have Apostolic Succession, and there is this ‘unbroken’ listing of Popes since St. Peter, but there are some gaps in the listing that appear to be about 2 years long.

Not to mention, the time from the death of one Pope to the consecration (?) of the next.

How do we explain this? or better yet, can you just explain it to me?

It is important to realize that the Papacy is an office, not an order.

The office passes from the holder, to the synod and then to another holder.

Every bishop has apostolic succession, which he obtains from his consecrators, not the synod. The office belongs to the church of the particular city.

This is why the See can be vacant at times, the synod has not chosen a new officeholder.

These days the synod (in the case of Rome) has been superseded by the more modern College of Cardinals, and the function in the local diocesan synods of the western church have been generally suppressed in favor of appointment from the Pope.

 

[ahollars]

When the Pope died, how long do you think it took for men to reach the far corners of the known world by sailboat or horseback? Then, their is the journey of the Cardinals back to Rome, or verification of their death. The conclave would not begin until all members were present, and the selection of the next Pope is almost never planned. The men back then knew almost nothing about their fellow bishops, and finally, imagine the language barriers of the past compared to now.

It took 18 days after JP2 died before BXVI was selected, even in a world with mass media and air travel.

 

[Hesychios]

When the Pope died, how long do you think it took for men to reach the far corners of the known world by sailboat or horseback? …

Not to mention the political infighting and dealmaking …

But actually, that problem (of long travels) only began once the electors were chosen from outside the diocese of Rome. In the early church the actual priests and deacons of the diocese of Rome elected their bishop, then bishops from nearby would be called upon to do the honors of consecrating him to bishop (if he was not already a bishop).

So the ‘office’ of Pope comes from the church of the city, goes back to the church of the city when the bishop dies, and is bestowed upon another person afterward. The question over the time gaps is not one of practical issues of gathering the electors, but really one of the nature of the Papacy.

It must be recognized that no Pope actually names his successor in office. It is even conceivably possible that he had never even met his successor. The Papacy is not an order of the church (like bishop deacon or presbyter), it is an office.

Apostolic succession actually refers to the passing on of the order of bishop (and it’s sacramental nature from the Holy Spirit) by the laying on of hands from a real bishop to the candidate priest. Hence the confusion and the original question: there are no ‘gaps’ in Apostolic succession.

The Pope is a bishop, usually consecrated into his ministry as a bishop by someone who is not a Pope. It happens to be a more modern practice (with the advent of better transportation methods) that many bishops are consecrated these days with a Pope as the principal consecrator. It is considered an honor to be ordained or elevated to bishop by the Pope himself, so many are eager for this. It makes them bishops who can trace their Apostolic succession through a Pope.

 

[diggerdomer]

How do we explain the time(s) when there is no one in the seat?

Apostolic succession is maintained regardless. Through all the bishops. Just because the contemporary process for choosing a successor to the Bishop of Rome may have taken days, months, or even years, does not mean that the Spirit left the Church and that apostolic succession was not maintained.