"Unbroken" Apostolic Succession?

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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)?

That is correct. I’m a Franciscan Third Order Secular.

 

[Sebastianos]

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.

If by “Catholic” you mean “in communion with Rome”, then I understand your statement, otherwise it just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever looking back at history of the Church…

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

For some people it seems really hard to grasp the notion that Rome left the Church. Check your facts Brother, with all due respect to your orders.

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.

Please check the facts…

 

[Nicene]

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.

Actually the EO just dropped the name catholic, or some say we stole it (or something along those lines) but they do have valid Holy Orders, the seven sacraments etc. and the two branches are currently in schism.

Doctrinal differences do need to be addressed but in essence they are catholic, whether they use the name or not. IMHO it is a semantic arguement.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

For some people it seems really hard to grasp the notion that Rome left the Church. Check your facts Brother, with all due respect to your orders.

Actually he is correct. The catholic church prior to the schism composed both east and west. So in principle you do owe that succession to the catholic church. Claiming to be outside that universal body prior to the schism would put into question Holy Orders.

Those Holy Orders are not in question.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

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.

Actually it is. Valid orders are dependant on form and matter. The succession of St. Andrew was not dependant on St. Peter. Each was granted, by an apostle, valid ordination and through them concecration of others. They were granted their office by our Lord. Pretty sure his appointment stands firm.

Leferve for example (and the SSPX will porobably jump on this one) was not granted the ability to concecrate bishops. Hence illegitimate orders.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

For some people it seems really hard to grasp the notion that Rome left the Church. Check your facts Brother, with all due respect to your orders.

Unless you are saying that our Lords commission is invalid then you really don’t have a case. Form and matter hasn’t changed. As much as people want to bluster you can no more change his commission than we can yours. Those Sees are by nature by divine decree, not even you can change that.

But if you want to discuss Arianism and who the only ones who didn’t fall into it were then…

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

If by “Catholic” you mean “in communion with Rome”, then I understand your statement, otherwise it just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever looking back at history of the Church…

For some people it seems really hard to grasp the notion that Rome left the Church. Check your facts Brother, with all due respect to your orders.

Please check the facts…

“For some people it seems really hard to grasp the notion that Rome left the Church.” The Church of Rome didn’t leave the Church. That is an Orthodox view of History.

 

[jmcrae]

For some people it seems really hard to grasp the notion that Rome left the Church. Check your facts Brother, with all due respect to your orders.

Rome is the Church, and she did not leave herself. To be “in the Church” is to be in communion with Rome - St. Ignatius of Antioch said so in 110 AD, and this has been reaffirmed throughout the centuries, both before and after the Eastern schism - and that’s a fact, Brother.

 

[joshua_b]

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.

I want to go back to this, and put all of the arguing aside for a minute. The unbroken line of succession has to do with the validity of Holy Orders, not communion with the Bishop of Rome. Regardless of how we choose to interpret history, the fact remains that the Orthodox and Catholic church BOTH have validly ordained priests, fully able to validly confect the Eucharist, annoint the sick, and hear confessions (and absolve sin). That was my original point.

 

[jmcrae]

I want to go back to this, and put all of the arguing aside for a minute. The unbroken line of succession has to do with the validity of Holy Orders, not communion with the Bishop of Rome. Regardless of how we choose to interpret history, the fact remains that the Orthodox and Catholic church BOTH have validly ordained priests, fully able to validly confect the Eucharist, annoint the sick, and hear confessions (and absolve sin). That was my original point.

Yes, that’s true. What I was trying to get at is that Apostolic Succession comes ultimately through the Bishop of Rome, even for organizations that are no longer in communion with him - there are no completely independent agents.

 

[joshua_b]

Yes, that’s true. What I was trying to get at is that Apostolic Succession comes ultimately through the Bishop of Rome, even for organizations that are no longer in communion with him - there are no completely independent agents.

Point taken, but (and please hear me out here) that leaves sort of a negative connotation. In the apostolic age, was it neccessary for all Holy Orders to be sanctioned by St. Peter, or were the various Apostles and subsequent Bishops free to use their own discretion without direct involvement from the bishop of Rome ?

This is a little of an aside, so if I’m off topic here, then let me know mod, and I may repost this as a separate thread, but I am curious on this myself now…anyone well versed in early Church history ???