Succession Lineage of a Bishop to a Specific Apostle

[novaslasher]

I used to attend a bible study lead by an extremely knowledgable and orthodox Catholic theology grad student. In one lesson, she told us about an interesting practice regarding ordination of a bishop. She claims that each newly ordained bishop is told which apostle their ordination comes from by the bishop who ordains them. This is done in secret; perhaps to avoid splintering of the Church into different factions (I think the bible warns against a person claiming they are a disciple of a particular apostle but rather they should say they are a disciple of Christ Jesus). I think she said the reason this is done is so that this emphasizes the continuity of episcopal succession. It’s been awhile since that conversation though, so I might have confused the issue.

Has anyone heard of this practice before? It was the first time I ever heard of it, and the Catholic Encyclopedia had no information on it that I could find. If so, anyone have a source? I might submit this question to the CAF staff apologists.

 

[FrDavid96]

I used to attend a bible study lead by an extremely knowledgable and orthodox Catholic theology grad student. In one lesson, she told us about an interesting practice regarding ordination of a bishop. She claims that each newly ordained bishop is told which apostle their ordination comes from by the bishop who ordains them. This is done in secret; perhaps to avoid splintering of the Church into different factions (I think the bible warns against a person claiming they are a disciple of a particular apostle but rather they should say they are a disciple of Christ Jesus). I think she said the reason this is done is so that this emphasizes the continuity of episcopal succession. It’s been awhile since that conversation though, so I might have confused the issue.

Has anyone heard of this practice before? It was the first time I ever heard of it, and the Catholic Encyclopedia had no information on it that I could find. If so, anyone have a source? I might submit this question to the CAF staff apologists.

I’ve never heard of that, and although I’m in no position to disprove it, I rather doubt it. That would mean that the tradition of doing so would, of necessity, have to date back to the first century, and it just seems very unlikely. Apostolic succession was recognized as important as early as the first century AD (Ignatius of Antioch, for example) and I have a hard time believing that the Succession would be regarded as a secret to be kept.

I also find it a bit hard to believe that a secret practice like this would survive for nearly 2,000 years, and yet in all that time, never be revealed (except to your grad student friend, of course!). Surely, in all that time, some schismatic bishop would have taken the opportunity to break the silence, even if for no more motivation than revenge.

There are plenty of people around when a new bishop is ordained. Are we to believe that in 2,000 years, no one ever overheard this happening? or if they did, they all kept the secret? It’s impossible to prove that a secret doesn’t exist–but it’s very difficult to believe in this one.

Chalk this one up to “urban legend.”

 

[novaslasher]

Thank you for your response Father. I believe she said that the practice is not secret. It’s just that the specific lineage is not told to the masses.

I think you have a good point about the ability of this information to survive 2000 years. Even if this practice really occurs, I don’t think there is good reason to believe that the information in the practice is true. Certainly this sort of information is not of sufficient importance to be contained in Oral Tradition. Only the fact that the succession stems from one of the apostles is important.

 

[Joe_5859]

If you go to Catholic-Hierarchy.org, you can see any bishop’s lineage traced back to the 1500s or thereabouts. You can bug the sitemaster to see if they plan on going back further.

 

[novaslasher]

Cool find! I traced the lineage of Cardinal DiNardo of Galveston-Houston (one of my favorite bishops; he’d make a great pope someday) and it went all the way back to Bishop Scipione Cardinal Rebiba who was ordained bishop in 1541.

I wonder if there are any bishops who surf CaF and can answer this question? If I can get the nerve, I’ll ask a bishop myself next time I see one at mass.

 

[AJV]

I seriously doubt this claim, and am inclined to think that yout friend was perhaps mistaken on account of either the terms Apostolic Succession or Episcopal Line. We just don’t have documentary evidence that can date back that far, and such a practice has never featured in the Ordination rites of East and West, at least for the past few hundred centuries.

As you can imagine, it mightn’t work very well. One unscrupulous bishop might decide that it’s in his interest to claim ‘descent’ from St. Peter instead of St. Matthew, or St. John instead of St. Phillip, and so we’d land in a pickle pretty soon.

A similar practice, but different, is the announcing in some ordination rituals of something to the tune of “So-and-so is divinely elected to the chair of the Blessed N.” but that is different. It does not say that the bishop can trace his ordination ‘line’ back to the apostle, but only that he occupies the See which the apostle occupied (or in some cases, is claimed to have occupied).

A small word on Scipione Cardinal Rebiba. You’ll probably find that majority, if not all, of the bishops on the Catholic Hierarchy site** are traced back to him. The reason was because his episcopal ‘descendant’, as it were, was Benedict XIII. Benedict XIII was a very spiritual man, though a very bad Pope. Even as Pope, he continued a lot of pastoral work such as hearing confessions. He therefore ordained a great number of bishops (over 130), who in turn, ordained other bishops and so on. Hence, Rebiba’s name popping up frequently.

** (incidentally, the owner of the site, David, is a member - davidc2 - and sometimes posts updates in the Catholic News forum. You might wish to contact him if you have a specific question)

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you for your response Father. I believe she said that the practice is not secret. It’s just that the specific lineage is not told to the masses.

I think you have a good point about the ability of this information to survive 2000 years. Even if this practice really occurs, I don’t think there is good reason to believe that the information in the practice is true. Certainly this sort of information is not of sufficient importance to be contained in Oral Tradition. Only the fact that the succession stems from one of the apostles is important.

But doesn’t that beg the question: Why not “tell the masses?” I mean, if a bishop was actually able to trace his lineage back to a specific Apostle, by names, why would he not want to share that information? Or let me put it another way, I know the name of the bishop who ordained me (“Naturally” as Costello would say), so that means that he knows my own ordination pedigree (yes, that’s the word folks, believe it or nor) I’d be pretty upset to learn that he knows this information but won’t share it with me. I’m just not much of a believer in these “conspiracy theory” ideas we see so much of.

 

[FrDavid96]

Cool find! I traced the lineage of Cardinal DiNardo of Galveston-Houston (one of my favorite bishops; he’d make a great pope someday) and it went all the way back to Bishop Scipione Cardinal Rebiba who was ordained bishop in 1541.

I wonder if there are any bishops who surf CaF and can answer this question? If I can get the nerve, I’ll ask a bishop myself next time I see one at mass.

But remember, it’s a secret, so he won’t answer you anyway

 

[novaslasher]

But doesn’t that beg the question: Why not “tell the masses?”

Well, regarding “why” it’s in the OP. She said it was done this way to keep factions from forming in the early church.

Your responses do make sense. I was only curious if anyone had heard it before, and I’m willing to take it as an urban legend.

I tip my tinfoil hat to you sir!

 

[sancte_joseph]

Cool find! I traced the lineage of Cardinal DiNardo of Galveston-Houston (one of my favorite bishops; he’d make a great pope someday) and it went all the way back to Bishop Scipione Cardinal Rebiba who was ordained bishop in 1541.

I wonder if there are any bishops who surf CaF and can answer this question? If I can get the nerve, I’ll ask a bishop myself next time I see one at mass.

Are you in his diocese!? I AM!

yes he’s a very holy man… and yea who knows maybe one day we’ll be calling him Your Holiness

 

[rkrispies]

A small word on Scipione Cardinal Rebiba. You’ll probably find that majority, if not all, of the bishops on the Catholic Hierarchy site** are traced back to him. The reason was because his episcopal ‘descendant’, as it were, was Benedict XIII. Benedict XIII was a very spiritual man, though a very bad Pope. Even as Pope, he continued a lot of pastoral work such as hearing confessions. He therefore ordained a great number of bishops (over 130), who in turn, ordained other bishops and so on. Hence, Rebiba’s name popping up frequently.

** (incidentally, the owner of the site, David, is a member - davidc2 - and sometimes posts updates in the Catholic News forum. You might wish to contact him if you have a specific question)

Another site (mysite.verizon.net/res7gdmc/aposccs/index.html) claims the line of succession starting with Rebiba comprises 90% of the more than 5,000 living bishops.

Chris

 

[novaslasher]

Are you in his diocese!? I AM!

yes he’s a very holy man… and yea who knows maybe one day we’ll be calling him Your Holiness

I used to live in Houston but now live in Virginia in the diocese of Arlington. Cardinal Dinardo made the commencement address at my sister’s graduation from St. Thomas in Houston. He also presided at the midnight Christmas mass at the new Sacred Heart Co-Cathedral. I’ve never been more impressed with a bishop or homilist then with him. He would make a holy and charismatic first American pope.

On the issue of Cardinal Rebiba, thank you for that link. It was very educational and interesting.

 

[Marysann]

We were taught that all of the bishops would be able to trace there episcopal genealogies back to the apostles if records hadn’t been lost in the early years. Only one diocese has a complete list of all of its bishops through the centuries, the Diocese of Rome! That episcopal genealogy can be found in any almanac or encyclopedia even today.

 

[FrDavid96]

We were taught that all of the bishops would be able to trace there episcopal genealogies back to the apostles if records hadn’t been lost in the early years. Only one diocese has a complete list of all of its bishops through the centuries, the Diocese of Rome! That episcopal genealogy can be found in any almanac or encyclopedia even today.

Actually, quite a few of the earliest dioceses have records of who the bishops were through the centuries, especially the more prominent ones in the Mediterranean (Jerusalem, Antioch, etc. etc.)

When it comes to Rome, yes, we do know who all of the popes were, but the problem for historians is that most of the popes were ordained bishops long before becomming the pope, and it’s those records of ordination, and which bishop did the ordination, that’s the missing-part.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I think one of the big problems would be the lack of 100% accurate records. For one, we aren’t even 100% sure on where all of the Apostles went to go preach and therefore ordain new Bishops – we have pious legends, but no hard facts on many of the Apostles.

Second, there is the strong chance that many records have been lost through the ages due to any number of factors (e.g. fire, theft, etc.). Aside from the major Sees (e.g. Rome, Alexandria, etc.) you’re lucky to get accurate information past around the 11th-13th century (from what I’ve seen). Added to that the problem of newly created, suppressed, and lost (to schism, heresy, etc.) dioceses.

Third, what does it matter? In a sense a Bishop is “descended” from all the Apostles.

Fourth, which consecrating Bishop does the new Bishop take his lineage from – there are three Bishop required to ordain a new Bishop.

I’m with Fr. David in considering this an urban legend/conspiracy theory. Not that a Bishop or Priest couldn’t do some research on his own – in fact, that is likely where this started: a Bishop did this research on his own, thought a Bishop he was ordaining would like the information also and so took him aside and told him (and a legend was born).

 

[novaslasher]

Fourth, which consecrating Bishop does the new Bishop take his lineage from – there are three Bishop required to ordain a new Bishop.

It’s an interesting question. Does the fullness of Holy Orders (as constituted in an episcopal ordination) come from the main presider or from all 3 bishops? And why are 3 bishops part of the ordination? Is it symbolic of the collegiate nature of the bishops? Or is it a meant as a safeguard against a potential and unknown invalid ordination in the ecclesial line of one of the consecrating bishops?

I also seem to remember from an Intro to Theology class, that the scholastics such as St. Thomas Aquinas believed that a bishop was not one of the 7 orders (priest, deacon, lector, acolyte, porter, exorcist, sub-deacon). Our theology professor told us that in modern times, we understand Holy Orders to consist of 3 tiers: deacons, priests, and bishops. The suborders are not part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and are rather considered a sacramental (deriving a commission or blessing, but not a true sacrament). Aquinas’ opinion of the 7 orders could be considered an incomplete understanding, or you could say that the scholastic listing of “priest” in the 7 orders could be further divided into a presbyter and episcopal class.

I think there is still a minority opinion out there among theologians that “bishops” are a rank within the church but are not a further “level” of Holy Orders.

 

[rkrispies]

I think episcopal lineages follow the principal consecrator. At least, that is how Card. Rebiba becomes the episcopal progenitor of so many (via he being the principal consecrator for Benedict XIII)

Chris

 

[AJV]

I think episcopal lineages follow the principal consecrator. At least, that is how Card. Rebiba becomes the episcopal progenitor of so many (via he being the principal consecrator for Benedict XIII)

Chris

The reason the line follows the principal consecrator is because until 1944, it was held (or at least, a controverted opinion) that the role of the other two bishops were only ceremonial. Thus, they could even be replaced by priests.

The reason for this was that they did not say all the prayers especially the prayers following Propitiare which formed the central rite of ordination. They did impose hands and say “Receive the Holy Spirit” but according to the scholastic reasoning, for a majority of theologians, this did not suffice. “Receive the Holy Spirit” was considered indeterminate, and thus an inadequate for the sacramental form by itself

After 1944, Pius XII ordained in Episcopalis Consecrationis that the two assistant should be co-consecrators in the “sacramental” instead of “ceremonial” sense. They were therefore obliged to make an intention to confer the sacrament, and to recite Propitiare, with some of the following prayers of the rite.[Later, in 1947, Pius XII defined the essential words --*Comple in sacerdote tuo – as being within the prayer following *Propitiare *) This practice has survived until today, in a modified form, where the other bishops only recite the ‘essential’ part *Et nunc effunde *with the presiding bishop reciting the whole prayer