"Unbroken" Apostolic Succession?

[Agrazing_Mace]

In the last two years, in an intense pursuit of a better understanding of my faith, I have become an avid reader of Catholic literature- primarily apologetics and more recently, the history of The Church. Too many times I have seen the phrase “unbroken line of apostolic succession” in discussions and writings relating to our very rich Catholic Tradition.

This made me a bit curious, so I looked-up the list of popes on the New Advent website. In a simple glance through the chain, I saw six noticeable gaps. It has been eating at me to know the “whys” behind them. If anyone with a more thorough knowledge of history could answer, please clue-me-in to the following:

1. year 304 - 308 … gap between #29 (St. Marcellinus) and #30 (St. Marcellus I).
2. year 1241 -1243 … gap between #180 (Celestine IV) and #181 (Innocent IV).
3. year 1268 - 1271 … gap between #184 (Clement IV) and #185 (Blessed Gregory X).
4. year 1292 - 1294 … gap between #192 (Nicholas IV) and #193 (St. Celestine V).
5. year 1314 - 1316 … gap between #196 (Clement V) and #197 (John XXII).
6. year 1415 - 1417 … gap between #206 (Gregory XII) and #207 (Martin V).

I actually noticed many other one-year gaps, but they may not be full one-year gaps, and they may have been due to election/consecration not happening for a month or so after the previous pontiff’s departure. I am more concerned with the multi-year gaps. Please help me understand why and if it is anything to really be concerned about.

 

[awfulthings9]

Hey Mace,

I’m not a history scholar, but I’m not sure one has to be to answer this one.

II think you are confusing two different things. “Unbroken line of succession” means that the bishops and pope (who is a bishop) received their ordination from men who received their ordination from men who … all the way back to the apostles and Christ. It has nothing to do with the space in between popes, so the dates don’t threaten or even have an relevance to that claim.

 

[TNT]

Hey Mace,

I’m not a history scholar, but I’m not sure one has to be to answer this one.

II think you are confusing two different things. “Unbroken line of succession” means that the bishops and pope (who is a bishop) received their ordination from men who received their ordination from men who … all the way back to the apostles and Christ. It has nothing to do with the space in between popes, so the dates don’t threaten or even have an relevance to that claim.

DITTO!
Now, to satisfy your interest:
Go to this site.
Click the name of the first pope AFTER the gap.
Most often it explains the previous vacancy.
the post above said it all.
Otherwise every time a pope died, 1 minute later “succession” would be “broken”.

 

[jmcrae]

In the last two years, in an intense pursuit of a better understanding of my faith, I have become an avid reader of Catholic literature- primarily apologetics and more recently, the history of The Church. Too many times I have seen the phrase “unbroken line of apostolic succession” in discussions and writings relating to our very rich Catholic Tradition.

This made me a bit curious, so I looked-up the list of popes on the New Advent website. In a simple glance through the chain, I saw six noticeable gaps. It has been eating at me to know the “whys” behind them. If anyone with a more thorough knowledge of history could answer, please clue-me-in to the following:

1. year 304 - 308 … gap between #29 (St. Marcellinus) and #30 (St. Marcellus I).
2. year 1241 -1243 … gap between #180 (Celestine IV) and #181 (Innocent IV).
3. year 1268 - 1271 … gap between #184 (Clement IV) and #185 (Blessed Gregory X).
4. year 1292 - 1294 … gap between #192 (Nicholas IV) and #193 (St. Celestine V).
5. year 1314 - 1316 … gap between #196 (Clement V) and #197 (John XXII).
6. year 1415 - 1417 … gap between #206 (Gregory XII) and #207 (Martin V).

I actually noticed many other one-year gaps, but they may not be full one-year gaps, and they may have been due to election/consecration not happening for a month or so after the previous pontiff’s departure. I am more concerned with the multi-year gaps. Please help me understand why and if it is anything to really be concerned about.

No, it’s nothing to be concerned about. As long as there is even one Roman Catholic Bishop still alive, we are connected in an unbroken line to the Apostles - and you can be sure that he would be appointing other Bishops as fast as he can, in order to repopulate the Church. The Popes are elected by the Bishops, and in turn, Bishops are appointed by the Pope. As long as that cycle continues, we’ll always be in good shape.

 

[maronite]

No, it’s nothing to be concerned about. As long as there is even one Roman Catholic Bishop still alive, we are connected in an unbroken line to the Apostles -

i slightly disagree with that statement… as long as there is a Catholic Bishop still alive we are connected in an unbroken line.
if a Eastern Catholic, or latin rite catholic Bishop were alive then they too are part of the unbroken line.

 

[Veritas41]

Warren Carroll has a series of books, “The Building of Christendom” that covers the Church from the end of the Roman Empire up through the Reformation (maybe some beyond that, but those are the ones I have). I have three of them and have read one, in the process of reading another and haven’t gotten around to the third one yet. But if you read about the papacy in the Middle Ages, especially around the 11th -12th centuries, times were pretty tumultuous and it was actually very dangerous to be a pope (with some being beaten, arrested, and several murdered). The fact that the papacy has survived through the centuries with so many people intent on destroying it or undermining is a testimony to its divine establishment. It’s definitely a faith-building experience to read about it

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

In the last two years, in an intense pursuit of a better understanding of my faith, I have become an avid reader of Catholic literature- primarily apologetics and more recently, the history of The Church. Too many times I have seen the phrase “unbroken line of apostolic succession” in discussions and writings relating to our very rich Catholic Tradition.

This made me a bit curious, so I looked-up the list of popes on the New Advent website. In a simple glance through the chain, I saw six noticeable gaps. It has been eating at me to know the “whys” behind them. If anyone with a more thorough knowledge of history could answer, please clue-me-in to the following:

1. year 304 - 308 … gap between #29 (St. Marcellinus) and #30 (St. Marcellus I).
2. year 1241 -1243 … gap between #180 (Celestine IV) and #181 (Innocent IV).
3. year 1268 - 1271 … gap between #184 (Clement IV) and #185 (Blessed Gregory X).
4. year 1292 - 1294 … gap between #192 (Nicholas IV) and #193 (St. Celestine V).
5. year 1314 - 1316 … gap between #196 (Clement V) and #197 (John XXII).
6. year 1415 - 1417 … gap between #206 (Gregory XII) and #207 (Martin V).

I actually noticed many other one-year gaps, but they may not be full one-year gaps, and they may have been due to election/consecration not happening for a month or so after the previous pontiff’s departure. I am more concerned with the multi-year gaps. Please help me understand why and if it is anything to really be concerned about.

Because your are missing the true meaning of Apostolic Succession. St. Marcellus I does not succeed St. Marcellinus and Benedict XVI does not succeed John Paul II.

They are all successors of Peters office. Remember that “office” means authority. There is also as noted above an unbroken line of Ordination from an Apostle to a Bishop of Rome to another Bishop of Rome and so on…

 

[CollegeKid]

As long as there is even one Roman Catholic Bishop still alive, we are connected in an unbroken line to the Apostles

Would it really only have to be** one** bishop going back in an unbroken line to an apostle in order to maintain the apostolic succession for the entire church? I thought it would have to be an unbroken line to each apostle.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Would it really only have to be** one** bishop going back in an unbroken line to an apostle in order to maintain the apostolic succession for the entire church? I thought it would have to be an unbroken line to each apostle.

Bishops are Ordained by three other Bishops. This practice started quite a long time ago. True it was not done necessarly in the very early Church. But the line of Succession because of this with Ordination very quickly becomes more of a web.

 

[jmcrae]

Would it really only have to be** one** bishop going back in an unbroken line to an apostle in order to maintain the apostolic succession for the entire church? I thought it would have to be an unbroken line to each apostle.

Do we have that, even now?

I am under the impression that the only certainty we have is that the Bishop of Rome (and through him, all living Bishops today) goes back to the Apostle Peter.

 

[CollegeKid]

Do we have that, even now?

I am under the impression that the only certainty we have is that the Bishop of Rome (and through him, all living Bishops today) goes back to the Apostle Peter.

This gets to the heart of my question- if, theoretically, the only bishop alive today with an unbroken line of succession going all the way back to the apostles were the current Bishop of Rome, Benedict XVI, wouldn’t he himself have to ordain all other bishops for them to have valid holy orders?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

This gets to the heart of my question- if, theoretically, the only bishop alive today with an unbroken line of succession going all the way back to the apostles were the current Bishop of Rome, Benedict XVI, wouldn’t he himself have to ordain all other bishops for them to have valid holy orders?

He would have to Ordain at least one other and then either of them could ordain others, who could then ordain others, and so on.

 

[CollegeKid]

He would have to Ordain at least one other and then either of them could ordain others, who could then ordain others, and so on.

Oh yeah. (slapping myself across the face)

 

[Sebastianos]

And from the Orthodox side, here is a list of unbroken succession from apostle St. Andrew, The First Called (also brother of St .Peter)
ec-patr.org/list/index.php?lang=en

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I actually noticed many other one-year gaps, but they may not be full one-year gaps, and they may have been due to election/consecration not happening for a month or so after the previous pontiff’s departure. I am more concerned with the multi-year gaps. Please help me understand why and if it is anything to really be concerned about.

Sometimes the conclave takes a long time because Cardinals cannot agree who is to be Pope. Occasionally there may be a good reason, but usually this gives scandal. Fortunately, as you point out, really long gaps are rare. A Pope should be chosen as soon as reasonably possible, but there can be no firm definition of reasonable time.

 

[joshua_b]

i slightly disagree with that statement… as long as there is a Catholic Bishop still alive we are connected in an unbroken line.
if a Eastern Catholic, or latin rite catholic Bishop were alive then they too are part of the unbroken line.

I just wanted to reemphasize this little pearl of wisdom from our Eastern Bretheren. I think sometimes we forget (and the Protestant world doesn’t even realize) that the Catholic Church is bigger than just the Latin Rite of the Church.

An important side note is that there are other groups, such as the Orthodox, that have an “unbroken line of succession” going back to the Apostles, and these groups are clearly not Catholic in any way whatsoever.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I just wanted to reemphasize this little pearl of wisdom from our Eastern Bretheren. I think sometimes we forget (and the Protestant world doesn’t even realize) that the Catholic Church is bigger than just the Latin Rite of the Church.

An important side note is that there are other groups, such as the Orthodox, that have an “unbroken line of succession” going back to the Apostles, and these groups are clearly not Catholic in any way whatsoever.

But they owe their “Unbroken line of Succession” or Ordination to the Catholic Church! Of course they won’t admit that.

 

[joshua_b]

But they owe their “Unbroken line of Succession” or Ordination to the Catholic Church! Of course they won’t admit that.

Absolutely, but none the less, the point stands that valid Holy Orders are not entirely dependent on the current state of union with the Bishop of Rome. I think that the OP doesn’t (or at least didn’t) quite grasp the concept.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes Br. Rich, and as an aside, what order is “SFO” (just curious)?

 

[jmcrae]

I just wanted to reemphasize this little pearl of wisdom from our Eastern Bretheren. I think sometimes we forget (and the Protestant world doesn’t even realize) that the Catholic Church is bigger than just the Latin Rite of the Church.

An important side note is that there are other groups, such as the Orthodox, that have an “unbroken line of succession” going back to the Apostles, and these groups are clearly not Catholic in any way whatsoever.

It’s not an “unbroken” line, in their case, since a denominational shift occurs in the early 1000s AD, where their Bishops shift from being Catholic in communion with Rome to being independently self-governed. Their first Bishop of that specific church organization is not an Apostle living in the time of Christ, but a Patriarch living some time in the 1000s AD, who then traces his own Apostolic authority through the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Ignatius]

Hey Mace,

I’m not a history scholar, but I’m not sure one has to be to answer this one.

II think you are confusing two different things. “Unbroken line of succession” means that the bishops and pope (who is a bishop) received their ordination from men who received their ordination from men who … all the way back to the apostles and Christ. It has nothing to do with the space in between popes, so the dates don’t threaten or even have an relevance to that claim.

Excellent post. As you explained, an unbroken line of succession means that the orders were passed down in an unbroken line from the Apostles to this very day, it has nothing whatever to do with the period of time it takes to elect a new pope. Kudos on your cogent and clear post.