If Pope Benedict is the successor to Peter, who are the successors to the other 11 apostles (plus Paul)

  • Thread starter Thread starter dcarollo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dcarollo

Guest
Question about apostolic succession – and I’m sure this has probably been discussed somewhere…

But WHO are the successors to the Apostles today?
If we can trace Pope Benedict back to Peter – can we do the SAME for the other apostles?

Any good books on this topic?
 
The short answer is “the bishops.”

Long answer:
Catechism of the Catholic Church #861-862:
The bishops - successors of the apostles

861 “In order that the mission entrusted to them might be continued after their death, [the apostles] consigned, by will and testament, as it were, to their immediate collaborators the duty of completing and consolidating the work they had begun, urging them to tend to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit had appointed them to shepherd the Church of God. They accordingly designated such men and then made the ruling that likewise on their death other proven men should take over their ministry.”

862 “Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops.” Hence the Church teaches that “the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.”
Click to expand...
It should be theoretically possible to trace the line of ordination of every priest back to one of the apostles, but of course, it’s not really practical to come up with a list of names. But that’s what “apostolic succession” means.

–Jen
 
dcarollo said:
Question about apostolic succession – and I’m sure this has probably been discussed somewhere…

But WHO are the successors to the Apostles today?
If we can trace Pope Benedict back to Peter – can we do the SAME for the other apostles?

Any good books on this topic?
Click to expand...
Yes…at least from what I know of…the patriarchs.

Patriarch of Jerusalem:orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Jerusalem

1.James the Just (to 62)
2.Simeon I (62-107)
3.Justus I (107-112)
4.Zacchaeus (112-116)
5.Tobias (?)

Alexandria…orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Alexandria
1.Mark 42-68
2.Anianus (68-82)
3.Avilius (82-98)
4.Kedron (96-106

Of Antioch:orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch

1.St. Peter the Apostle (c.45-c.53)
2.St. Euodios (c.53-c.68)
3.St. Ignatius I (c.68-100)
4.Eros I (100-c.127)
5.Cornelius (c.127-c.151)

Constantinople…orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Constantinople

Apostolic era (33-100) 1.St. Andrew the Apostle (founder)
2.Stachys (38-54)
3.Onesimus (54-68)
4.Polycarpus I (69-89)
5.Plutarch (89-105)
 
Hm, I’m going to take a stab at this…someone correct me if I’m wrong!

St. Andrew founded the church at Byzantium…so I believe his successor is His All Holiness, Bartholomew I, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

Since St. James the Greater was leading the church in Jerusalem, his successor is probably His Holiness Gregory III Laham, Melkite Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, Alexandria and Jerusalem.

St. John, however does not have a direct successor…as someone who currently sits in his see, which is defunct. There has been no titular head of this see since 1992.
gcatholic.com/dioceses/former/t0680.htm

St. Philip…I’m not sure about. I can assume though that his see is defunct and may not have even a titular head now.

St. Bartholomew preached to the Armenians…and so his successor is His Holiness Karekin II Surpreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians–head of the Armenian Orthodox Church
or, it could be His Beatitude Nerses Bedros XIX Tarmouni, patriarch of the Armenian Catholic Church. That depends on who you ask…

St. Thomas founded the church in India, but it is unclear who is his successor. I would wager that it is either
-His Beatitude Mar George Alencherry Major Archbishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly
(Syro-Malabar Church)
-or any of the heads of the various other “St. Thomas Christian” churches in the area.

St. Matthew apparently preached to the Ethiopians so his successor is the head of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, which currently is vacant.

St. James the Lesser was, according to tradition martyred in Egypt…but St. Mark founded the Church in Egypt.

St. Jude, also, does not have a direct successor that I know of…but that depends on his ancient see.

St. Simon the Zealot, also must have had an ancient see that either has a current head or a titular head.
As for St. Paul, I really have no idea. It depends on whichever church he was first a bishop of!

Though, we need to remember that all bishops are successors to the apostles through the line of consecration and succession. The ones i listed are only the /direct/ successors, meaning they occupy the see of any given Apostle!
 
Domnall said:
Hm, I’m going to take a stab at this…someone correct me if I’m wrong!

St. Andrew founded the church at Byzantium…so I believe his successor is His All Holiness, Bartholomew I, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

Since St. James the Greater was leading the church in Jerusalem, his successor is probably His Holiness Gregory III Laham, Melkite Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, Alexandria and Jerusalem.

St. John, however does not have a direct successor…as someone who currently sits in his see, which is defunct. There has been no titular head of this see since 1992.
gcatholic.com/dioceses/former/t0680.htm

St. Philip…I’m not sure about. I can assume though that his see is defunct and may not have even a titular head now.

St. Bartholomew preached to the Armenians…and so his successor is His Holiness Karekin II Surpreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians–head of the Armenian Orthodox Church
or, it could be His Beatitude Nerses Bedros XIX Tarmouni, patriarch of the Armenian Catholic Church. That depends on who you ask…

St. Thomas founded the church in India, but it is unclear who is his successor. I would wager that it is either
-His Beatitude Mar George Alencherry Major Archbishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly
(Syro-Malabar Church)
-or any of the heads of the various other “St. Thomas Christian” churches in the area.

St. Matthew apparently preached to the Ethiopians so his successor is the head of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, which currently is vacant.

St. James the Lesser was, according to tradition martyred in Egypt…but St. Mark founded the Church in Egypt.

St. Jude, also, does not have a direct successor that I know of…but that depends on his ancient see.

St. Simon the Zealot, also must have had an ancient see that either has a current head or a titular head.
As for St. Paul, I really have no idea. It depends on whichever church he was first a bishop of!

Though, we need to remember that all bishops are successors to the apostles through the line of consecration and succession. The ones i listed are only the /direct/ successors, meaning they occupy the see of any given Apostle!
Click to expand...
The Patriarch of Antioch is a successor of St. Peter. Some Jurisdictions take Jerusalem today as part of their territory, but traditionally Jerusalem was a separate Jurisdiction. Some keep Jerusalem as a separate jurisidiction today as a titular See to maintain the honor due to the Holy City.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The Patriarch of Antioch is a successor of St. Peter. Some Jurisdictions take Jerusalem today as part of their territory, but traditionally Jerusalem was a separate Jurisdiction. Some keep Jerusalem as a separate jurisidiction today as a titular See to maintain the honor due to the Holy City.
Click to expand...
Hm, I didn’t know that about the Patriarch of Antioch!

Though, I did some poking around and there is apparently an Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. I know there is a Latin one, but his title is a mere honorific.

Would that make Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem the successor of St. James?
 
Apostolic succession does not necessarily mean that the apostol appointed his replacement directly, yes it’s one way it can happen but the Church can also appoint a replacement for a see by council like they one they had in Jerusalem to appoint the replacement of Judas.
Why some sees are left vacant, could be due to the political situation in the particural region and the Church is waiting for more auspicious time to do so…
 
revert_jen said:
The short answer is “the bishops.”

Long answer:

It should be theoretically possible to trace the line of ordination of every priest back to one of the apostles, but of course, it’s not really practical to come up with a list of names. But that’s what “apostolic succession” means.

–Jen
Click to expand...
Somewhere I stumbled upon a web site that has every bishop traced back to the original apostles.
 
Domnall said:
Hm, I didn’t know that about the Patriarch of Antioch!

Though, I did some poking around and there is apparently an Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. I know there is a Latin one, but his title is a mere honorific.

Would that make Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem the successor of St. James?
Click to expand...
Places where the Church schismed makes for curious places. The Catholic Church alone has 3 claimants to the Patriarchate of Antioch (Melkites, Maronites, Syriac). Nevermind the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox claimants.
 
This is kind of a silly question. Anyone who has studied Church history has to be aware that the idea that Benedict XVI has some sort of direct, traceable line of succession akin to a family tree or a kingship is undefendable. The Avignon Captivity rules out any claim the church tries to build that there is an unbroken line. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t spiritual power conferred to a bishop at his ordination, it just means that you have to let go of the idea of “direct succession” as anything other than a mythic story.
 
RCconvert7 said:
This is kind of a silly question. Anyone who has studied Church history has to be aware that the idea that Benedict XVI has some sort of direct, traceable line of succession akin to a family tree or a kingship is undefendable. The Avignon Captivity rules out any claim the church tries to build that there is an unbroken line. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t spiritual power conferred to a bishop at his ordination, it just means that you have to let go of the idea of “direct succession” as anything other than a mythic story.
Click to expand...
Agreed. There were in fact a number of times in history where we don’t know who the rightful Pope was. Many claim that Peter appointed a successor, yet in today’s Conclave we know that the previous Pope never appoints a successor.
 
Gentlemen, the O.P. is thinking of coming into the Catholic Church. To linger upon the historic differences between East and West is not edifying. It seems that the O.P, is considering the Latin rite, so it would be nice if you would allow that the Latin Bishops, including the Pope are also descended from the Apostles and the Pope respectively.

Thank you. 👍
 
dcarollo said:
Question about apostolic succession – and I’m sure this has probably been discussed somewhere…

But WHO are the successors to the Apostles today?
If we can trace Pope Benedict back to Peter – can we do the SAME for the other

The bishops of the Church. Short and simple.[BIBLEDRB][BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]
Click to expand...
 
ConstantineTG said:
Places where the Church schismed makes for curious places. The Catholic Church alone has 3 claimants to the Patriarchate of Antioch (Melkites, Maronites, Syriac). Nevermind the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox claimants.
Click to expand...
Despite my affectionate relationship to the Melkite Catholic Church, when it comes down to it…I’d place my money on the Orthodox Patriarch. 🙂
 
Thanks all!

I love coming here.
There is NOT been a curve-ball that I’ve wrestled with that has not been answered at some point on these forums.
 
OK – so about the Roman Catholic/Orthodox succession. At some point, there must have been a split in succession then after 1054?
 
Linus:

Where did you learn of the O.P. (You mean The Orthodox Patriarch Bartholemew? patriarchate.org/news ) thinking of entering the Catholic Church?

WOuldn’t this be world-wide news?
 
dcarollo said:
Linus:

Where did you learn of the O.P. (You mean The Orthodox Patriarch Bartholemew? patriarchate.org/news ) thinking of entering the Catholic Church?

WOuldn’t this be world-wide news?
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you mean here. Didn’t you say you were considering entering the Catholic Church? If not, I apologize. In that case perhaps you should modify your " religious affiliation " so others won’t missinterpret also. I don’t know where Patriarch Bartholemew comes into this???
🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top