Important Question about the Laying on of Hands

[Jack_245814]

So I completely accept the act of “laying on of hands” as the valid way of apostolic succession . . . it is attested to in an unambiguous manner on multiple occasions in the New Testament.

But how do we know that the line is unbroken? How do we know that St. Peter had time to ordain a new bishop before he was executed? The Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians makes reference to the election of a new Bishop after the previous one’s death . . . how would that work, given the necessity of laying on of hands?

Maybe I’m just confused here; in fact, I probably am. Still though, I need some help understanding this. Could it be that Christ’s proclamation that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against [the Church]” proves that, at least in Rome, the line of apostolic succession has always been kept pure?

 

[Formosus]

The Epistle of Clement’s example of a new bishop being elected is easily explained, in that bishops from nearby cities would come to ordain the new bishop. Its been the ancient tradition of the Church that three bishops be present for the ordination of a Bishop. As for Peter, we can assume he either chose his successor before death and either he did the ordaining or another Bishop did. Either way, Peter’s successor was indeed, Peter’s successor.

 

[Jack_245814]

The Epistle of Clement’s example of a new bishop being elected is easily explained, in that bishops from nearby cities would come to ordain the new bishop. Its been the ancient tradition of the Church that three bishops be present for the ordination of a Bishop. As for Peter, we can assume he either chose his successor before death and either he did the ordaining or another Bishop did. Either way, Peter’s successor was indeed, Peter’s successor.

I’m not sure if that works here. Bishops were often elected by the people of Rome at that time - whether just the clergy or the parishoners generally I don’t know.

If the laying-on-of-hands was then done by three other people, how would he be the heir to St. Peter in an ontological sense? Because his see is Rome?

I just don’t understand this theological concept at all right now; I’m not arguing against it, just trying to wrap my head around it.

 

[Formosus]

If Peter had to lay the hands on him himself, then explain why when we elect a new Pope, the old Pope doesn’t have to lay hands on him? The Petrine office has to do with the See of Rome, not with the previous holder of it laying hands upon the next .

 

[Jack_245814]

You’re right.

I’m silly

I knew I was just confusing something.