Question for Lutherans

[Don_Ruggero]

It’s proving a succession from the apostles of Christ

Do you actually understand how bizarre your question is in light of what actually is our own history in the Roman Church?

Well beyond 90% of Catholic genealogy of the sacrament of Order can only be traced back to a point in time that is, in fact, decades after the Reformation ourselves…let alone back to the apostles.

I can trace my lineage back to the mid-sixteenth century…where it stops with Cardinal Rebiba. It is on faith alone that I know there is a link to the Church’s beginning…there is no “proving” it.

Each is listed in historical order. Peter the apostle was succeeded by Linus, all the way to Pope Francis.

You are also incorrect to link apostolic succession as being from one pope to the next. There are occasions where one pope ordains a future successor…notably Benedict XV ordained Pius XII as Bishop. One sees it in the Baziak line. All the bishops and priests ordained by John Paul II enter the line of Archbishop Baziak. Thus in the genealogy of John Paul’s episcopate, one has to go back to 1826 to find Leo XII ordaining the future Cardinal Mellini.

One pope follows another – sometimes with very large gaps indeed – but one typically does not descend from another in terms of the genealogy of Order.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Do you actually understand how bizarre your question is in light of what actually is our own history in the Roman Church?

Well beyond 90% of Catholic genealogy of the sacrament of Order can only be traced back to a point in time that is, in fact, decades after the Reformation ourselves…let alone back to the apostles.

I can trace my lineage back to the mid-sixteenth century…where it stops with Cardinal Rebiba. It is on faith alone that I know there is a link to the Church’s beginning…there is no “proving” it.

You are also incorrect to link apostolic succession as being from one pope to the next. There are occasions where one pope ordains a future successor…notably Benedict XV ordained Pius XII as Bishop. One sees it in the Baziak line. All the bishops and priests ordained by John Paul II enter the line of Archbishop Baziak. Thus in the genealogy of John Paul’s episcopate, one has to go back to 1826 to find Leo XII ordaining the future Cardinal Mellini.

One pope follows another – sometimes with very large gaps indeed – but one typically does not descend from another in terms of the genealogy of Order.

Thank you so much for this post, Don Ruggero. For some reason, I conjured up in my mind many people here on the forum fainting dead away. I’m glad YOU were the one to say these things and not anyone of us outside the fold.

You may be getting some push back; just a guess.

 

[mattp0625]

Do you actually understand how bizarre your question is in light of what actually is our own history in the Roman Church?

Well beyond 90% of Catholic genealogy of the sacrament of Order can only be traced back to a point in time that is, in fact, decades after the Reformation ourselves…let alone back to the apostles.

I can trace my lineage back to the mid-sixteenth century…where it stops with Cardinal Rebiba. It is on faith alone that I know there is a link to the Church’s beginning…there is no “proving” it.

You are also incorrect to link apostolic succession as being from one pope to the next. There are occasions where one pope ordains a future successor…notably Benedict XV ordained Pius XII as Bishop. One sees it in the Baziak line. All the bishops and priests ordained by John Paul II enter the line of Archbishop Baziak. Thus in the genealogy of John Paul’s episcopate, one has to go back to 1826 to find Leo XII ordaining the future Cardinal Mellini.

One pope follows another – sometimes with very large gaps indeed – but one typically does not descend from another in terms of the genealogy of Order.

Is there not a traceable apostolic succession for each pope?

How do you know that Pope Francis is a successor to Peter?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you so much for this post, Don Ruggero. For some reason, I conjured up in my mind many people here on the forum fainting dead away. I’m glad YOU were the one to say these things and not anyone of us outside the fold.

You may be getting some push back; just a guess.

I don’t know what there really is to push back on.

From what I have seen evidenced on this thread, I seem the only Catholic posting who actually has his own place in the genealogy of Order. I received a copy of mine the day I was ordained. Does anyone else on this thread have one?

It was an interesting topic, actually, when I taught liturgy and sacraments since it is rare that a seminarian would find that he would not be, at ordination, in the Rebiba line.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Is there not a traceable apostolic succession for each pope?

How do you know that Pope Francis is a successor to Peter?

Am I to understand that you are actually asking this as a serious question?

 

[mattp0625]

Am I to understand that you are actually asking this as a serious question?

It’s rhetorical.

All I’m saying is we can trace Peter’s successor.

When looking at the Lutheran claims to apostolic succession, it’s very murky.

They clearly don’t have a pope. They rely on the notion there were bishops who came to the Lutheran church.

If that’s a claim to succession, as we do with Peter, Linus, Cletus, etc., one would hope for a name.

Beyond that, we can see the Lutheran orders had a lot to do with hostile takeovers coordinated by various individuals.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

It’s rhetorical.

All I’m saying is we can trace Peter’s successor.

When looking at the Lutheran claims to apostolic succession, it’s very murky.

They clearly don’t have a pope. They rely on the notion there were bishops who came to the Lutheran church.

If that’s a claim to succession, as we do with Peter, Linus, Cletus, etc., one would hope for a name.

Beyond that, we can see the Lutheran orders had a lot to do with hostile takeovers coordinated by various individuals.

What is the argument you are trying to make in referencing the successions of the Bishops of Rome? A Bishop of Rome dies and, following an interregnum, there is an election. There is a historic succession but there is no sacramental link related to the genealogy of Order.

When Wojtyla was elected, he descended from a Polish line of bishops that had nothing to do with his predecessors on the chair of Peter for a very very long time. That doesn’t affect his being pope neither positively nor negatively. The succession rests in ordination…it has nothing to do when one who has received episcopal ordination is elected to the Bishopric of Rome

As I have already said, none of us who are ordained can give the name of who ordained Cardinal Rebiba…and there the story ends.

 

[steve_b]

You know, Steve, I always appreciate your comments, even when we disagree.

We do like bringing light not heat to the conversation
J:

The entire issue is 30,000-40,000 “protestant” denominations thing.

Ah, got it.
J:

Long story. PM me if you’re interested.

:coffeeread:will I need a cup or a pot of coffee

 

[mattp0625]

What is the argument you are trying to make in referencing the successions of the Bishops of Rome? A Bishop of Rome dies and, following an interregnum, there is an election. There is a historic succession but there is no sacramental link related to the genealogy of Order.

When Wojtyla was elected, he descended from a Polish line of bishops that had nothing to do with his predecessors on the chair of Peter for a very very long time. That doesn’t affect his being pope neither positively nor negatively. The succession rests in ordination…it has nothing to do when one who has received episcopal ordination is elected to the Bishopric of Rome

As I have already said, none of us who are ordained can give the name of who ordained Cardinal Rebiba…and there the story ends.

What did Irenaeus of Lyon mean when he said Peter handed the office of the episcopate to Linus?

I don’t think you would question Pope Francis’s succession.

All I’m looking for is the starting point of the Lutheran claim to succession.

I have not seen it. What I have seen is proof of various other activities that lead to the establishment of orders. If there’s more information I’d be glad to see it.

 

[GKC]

Thank you so much for this post, Don Ruggero. For some reason, I conjured up in my mind many people here on the forum fainting dead away. I’m glad YOU were the one to say these things and not anyone of us outside the fold.

You may be getting some push back; just a guess.

Cardinal Rebiba has been mentioned on this board before.

 

[Memaw]

You still didn’t answer the question. But let me go on.

I mentioned three different communions:
Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists. Are saying all of these formed by protesting? If so, against whom were they protesting?

Yes. I know that.

Jon

The Catholic Church under the Pope was founded by Jesus Christ and no one else. Study the History of the Catholic Church and if you should care to do so you might just read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and see how Scripture, (which was given to us by the Catholic Church in it’s fullness) backs this up. God Bless, Memaw

 

[steido01]

It’s rhetorical.

All I’m saying is we can trace Peter’s successor.

When looking at the Lutheran claims to apostolic succession, it’s very murky.

They clearly don’t have a pope. **They rely on the notion there were bishops who came to the Lutheran church.

If that’s a claim to succession, as we do with Peter, Linus, Cletus, etc., one would hope for a name. **

Beyond that, we can see the Lutheran orders had a lot to do with hostile takeovers coordinated by various individuals.

Regarding the bit in bold… Lutherans don’t ‘rely’ on bishops to determine the apostolicity of their ordained men. Apostolicity, to Lutherans, is determined first on maintenance of apostolic teaching – succession is often a great indicator that the teaching has been maintained, but it is human-made and secondary. Depending on how one looks at things, precedence for this could go all the way back to St. Paul, who was out of succession, yet still called to the Ministry – even to correct a fellow Apostle!

Another point to remember is that the Lutheran doesn’t generally make a distinction between ‘bishop’ and ‘priest’ - each has received the same call and ordination. This is why Lutherans consider pastors to essentially be the local bishop, capable of administering the Sacrament of the Altar, confirming new Christians and --through consultation and the laying on of hands with his brother pastors-- ordaining a man called and educated by the church to the Office of Holy Ministry. (How much does it shift the conversation of Lutheran orders when the equivalent of a Lutheran pastor is a Catholic bishop? A Lutheran ordination involve just one or three bishops, but many!)

But Lutherans also understand that the church is made of humans who require good order, and for the sake of that good order, Lutherans are willing to maintain the old traditions. So Lutherans have reserved certain practical powers of oversight to their Presidents/Bishops.

Now, a small minority of Scandinavian Lutherans will disagree and say that succession is mandatory, but the vast majority of Lutherans view it as described above. Does that invalidate the ‘intent’ according to Roman Catholic rules? Jury’s technically out, but even if Rome were to clarify, it still couldn’t account for those few Scandinavians who’ve now shared their orders with much of Lutheranism. So history is… muddy.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I don’t think you would question Pope Francis’s succession.

I beg your pardon? Of course I don’t question his succession. His succession is from Rebiba, the same as mine.

I am asking you why you conflate two things which are quite separate and distinct.

 

[mattp0625]

Any answer about Irenaeus of Lyon writing about the office of the episcopate pledged from Peter to Linus?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Any answer about Irenaeus of Lyon writing about the office of the episcopate pledged from Peter to Linus?

I think Linus much more likely than not followed Peter, after Peter’s martyrdom, in Peter’s role relative to the Church of Rome…although there are sources other than Irenaeus that I bear in mind when I speak on this topic.

I certainly would not say that the origin of the munus of the episcopate, as we would describe it today, need essentially derive from Peter and very well may not. Indeed, there is no necessity for that. This particular era is especially interesting relative to the subsequent theology of Order and its structure.

It must be said that who follows whom in what we would term today the bishopric of Rome beyond Linus is much less clear from the Patristic sources and is a legitimate topic of question among historians more than the placement of Linus.

My answer is predicated on the fact that both history and theology are ill served when people give facile answers and when they over-simplify complex realities…such as we see in the 60s and the sub-apostolic Church. That is why patrology is, in fact, a demanding academic discipline and has its own pontifical athenaeum…

 

[mattp0625]

I think Linus much more likely than not followed Peter, after Peter’s martyrdom, in Peter’s role relative to the Church of Rome…although there are sources other than Irenaeus that I bear in mind when I speak on this topic.

I certainly would not say that the origin of the munus of the episcopate, as we would describe it today, need essentially derive from Peter and very well may not. Indeed, there is no necessity for that. This particular era is especially interesting relative to the subsequent theology of Order and its structure.

It must be said that who follows whom in what we would term today the bishopric of Rome beyond Linus is much less clear from the Patristic sources and is a legitimate topic of question among historians more than the placement of Linus.

My answer is predicated on the fact that both history and theology are ill served when people give facile answers and when they over-simplify complex realities…such as we see in the 60s and the sub-apostolic Church. That is why patrology is, in fact, a demanding academic discipline and has its own pontifical athenaeum…

The coptics claim apostolic succession from Saint Mark.
Many of the eastern churches claim apostolic succession from Ignatius of Antioch.

CCC 862 - successors of the apostles- indicates the permanent office confided to Peter alone was transmitted to the order of bishops, which endures without interruption.

If one claims apostolic succession, I did not think it would be unreasonable to trace a permanent office as all the others do.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The coptics claim apostolic succession from Saint Mark.
Many of the eastern churches claim apostolic succession from Ignatius of Antioch.

CCC 862 - successors of the apostles- indicates the permanent office confided to Peter alone was transmitted to the order of bishops, which endures without interruption.

If one claims apostolic succession, I did not think it would be unreasonable to trace a permanent office as all the others do.

Paragraph 862 in its entirety:

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.”

 

[mattp0625]

Paragraph 862 in its entirety:

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.”

Ok good.

So we agree it is an office that endures without interruption?

Also, agreed that the RCC, Coptics, and Orthodox all trace this office and claim their origins?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Ok good.

So we agree it is an office that endures without interruption?

Also, agreed that the RCC, Coptics, and Orthodox all trace this office and claim their origins?

The Order of Bishops exists as a continuous gift to the Church. This is articulated in Lumen Gentium, Chapter 3, quite well.

The point I was making is that, for most of the Church’s history and most instances, it is not possible to establish what individual bishop, by name, transmitted the episcopal office to what individual bishop-elect, by name. One can neither assert that – nor can they demand that; it does not exist.

In my case, I can do it back to the mid sixteenth century…and then the historical record as historical record stops.

There is no bishop in the Church, for example, who can say they have a historical record that shows that they are directly linked to Saint Thomas Becket or Saint Anselm or Saint Augustine…let alone the apostles…via these intervening generations of named bishops through the laying on of hands.

I am, somehow, descended from an apostle but that is the most I can say on this side of eternity.

 

[Duane1966]

While asking for forgiveness for the divisions of past centuries, it also seeks to showcase the gifts of the Reformation and celebrate the way Catholics and Lutherans around the world work together on issues of common concern.

Father, will you list for me the gifts of the Reformation?