Valid Catholic Succession

[SteveLy]

There are regular discussions of Anglican Holy Orders with many faithful falling on both sides of the valid/invalid concept.

In doing research a few years ago I came across the Roman Catholic Bishop Scipione Rebiba. He is in the line of succession of 95% of Roman Catholic Bishops, yet there is no record of who consecrated him a bishop.
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/brebi.html

I am wondering the Catholic reasoning or scholarship of accepting him as a Bishop when we have no record of his consecretion?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Dymphna1]

Is it possible that he received conditional orders, just as a new convert may receive conditional baptism when his original baptism is in question or he may not remember being baptized?

 

[SteveLy]

Generally that is reserved for a situation in which there is a question as to the validity of a consecration, but there is certain knowledge that a consecration took place. It is referred to as a sub-conditione ordination. In Bishop Rebebi’so case, there is not knowledge of that.

 

[Genesis315]

I think records of these thing only go back so far anyway. Plus, in case something were amiss, there’s a reason the rite requires two other bishops besides the principal minister.

 

[SteveLy]

That’s what’s interesting. Several Bishops I checked from that time frame had both principAL and co-consecrators listed. The one who is topic of this post has neither listed.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

He is in the line of succession of 95% of Roman Catholic Bishops, yet there is no record of who consecrated him a bishop.

How do you know this is true. I missed it.

 

[Genesis315]

Like I said, if you go back a little further, there are no records of anyone being ordained. It is what it is. Since the entire episcopate recognized Benedict XIII (Orsini) as the bishop of Rome, who was ordained a bishop through a succession including Rebiba (Benedict XIII ordaining many bishops all over the place is the reason so many trace it back to Rebiba) ,he must have been so. That should put the issue to rest.

Hunter’s Outlines of Dogmatic Theology Vol 1:

First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the. uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ’s promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.

This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempted to . expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. In just the same way the infallibility extends to declaring that a certain Council is or is not ecumenical.

The issue with Anglican orders is not about lost records, but about their not intending to ordain a Christian priesthood. Of course, in that case, we also had the definitive judgment of the Church.

 

[1ke]

There are regular discussions of Anglican Holy Orders with many faithful falling on both sides of the valid/invalid concept.

They are not valid because the Catholic Church has declared that they are not.

there is no record of who consecrated him a bishop

There is no record on the internet of who consecrated him bishop. This person who built this website has no data. That doesn’t mean that there is no data.

Perhaps there are no extant records. That does not mean that there were never any records. Sacramental records have ben kept in parishes for time immemorial. Sometimes those records are destroyed in fire, flood, and by time. But of course that would not be a problem at the time with contemporaries.

I am wondering the Catholic reasoning or scholarship of accepting him as a Bishop when we have no record of his consecretion

We don’t have a record of most bishops in the distant past. Peter, Paul, Timothy, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome.

Do you think those contemporary to him did not know who consecrated him as Bishop?

 

[BartholomewB]

I am wondering the Catholic reasoning or scholarship of accepting him as a Bishop when we have no record of his consecretion?

Documentary evidence of Rebiba’s consecration is not extant, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it never occurred. The entry for Rebiba in Salvador Miranda’s online catalog includes this footnote:

(1) It is widely believed that Bishop Rebiba was consecrated by Cardinal Gian Pietro Carafa, archbishop of Chieti, who became Pope Paul IV. However, no documentary evidence has been found to verify this hypothesis (Charles N. Branson Jr., Apostolic Succession in the Roman Catholic Church).

http://webdept.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1555-ii.htm#Rebiba

 

[PaulfromIowa]

There are regular discussions of Anglican Holy Orders with many faithful falling on both sides of the valid/invalid concept.

No, there is not. The question has been decided. The accuracy of that conclusion is not in any serious doubt.

 

[dochawk]

I am wondering the Catholic reasoning or scholarship of accepting him as a Bishop when we have no record of his consecretion?

If a mistake, it’s self-correcting–this is the very reason three bishops rather than one consecrate new bishops. If one, or even two, are not bishops, the new bishop has still valid orders.

hawk

 

[FrDavid96]

SteveLy:

He is in the line of succession of 95% of Roman Catholic Bishops, yet there is no record of who consecrated him a bishop.

How do you know this is true. I missed it.

It’s rather easy to go forward in the history. It’s just a matter of looking at the list of which bishops he ordained (26 according to the list), and the bishops subsequently ordained by them. Apparently, someone did that and calculated that 95% of today’s bishops have him as an ‘ancestor’.

 

[FrDavid96]

There are regular discussions of Anglican Holy Orders with many faithful falling on both sides of the valid/invalid concept.
…

That is not the case. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church knows the conclusion and does not doubt it. Anglican attempts at ordination are null and void.

 

[dochawk]

Apparently, someone did that and calculated that 95% of today’s bishops have him as an ‘ancestor’.

I would be surprised if there weren’t plenty of bishop’s with similar numbers.

If you assume an average time of 33 years between receiving and conferring orders, your have 3 “generations” per century. At 3 conferring bishops, this creates (3^3), or 27, ancestors in the most recent century, or 3^15 slots (many of which will duplicate) in five centuries, and so forth.

If you further assume that a relatively small fraction of bishops in each country are involved in most of the ordinations, 95% actually starts looking kind of small . . .

And, again, if that bishop, by chance, didn’t have orders (his evil twin stepped in and took over his life after ordination?), there are so many others in the chain that there isn’t a real concern about his ancestors having valid orders.

hawk

 

[SteveLy]

I appreciate the way you reasoned it out. It would be interesting to see if others were in a similar position.

I guess what made this particular case so profound is there doesn’t appear to be any written evidence of this man’s ordination to the Presbyteriate or Episcopacy. One would have thought with thete being such a focys on proving succesion, and other contemporaries having both primary and co-consecrators listed, that even had his records had been destroyed, someone would have taken the time to list his consecrators.

I guess we may never know.

 

[FrDavid96]

I appreciate the way you reasoned it out. It would be interesting to see if others were in a similar position.

I guess what made this particular case so profound is there doesn’t appear to be any written evidence of this man’s ordination to the Presbyteriate or Episcopacy. One would have thought with thete being such a focys on proving succesion, and other contemporaries having both primary and co-consecrators listed, that even had his records had been destroyed, someone would have taken the time to list his consecrators.

I guess we may never know.

For the most part, the further we go in history, the less records we have.

We tend to have good records for the more important sees; such as the patriarchal sees or those of major cities. However, that’s not because ordination records as such were maintained, but more because we have other sources such as the tombs of the bishops or lists of the bishops, or records of things they wrote or accomplished. The point is that scholars have to go to secondary sources to research ordinations, rather than simply look at a sacramental register as we would do today.

The idea of keeping an actual sacramental register (anything like we have today) originated in roughly the 1500s—the same general period as the bishop we’re discussing here.