What if Apostolic Succession was Broken?

[catholic03]

Hello!

Before I ask my question, please note that I believe entirely in the Church’s position on Apostolic Succession. It is wonderful to know that my priest was ordained in a line of priests and bishops going back to Christ.

Suppose, however, that a bishop who was validly consecrated did not for whatever reason consecrate another bishop properly because he did not have the right intent or even more alarmingly, what if earlier forms of the Mass were deficient and therefore eucharistic consecration was not valid.

I believe in all doctrines but I have been worried of late about this question. To simplify:

How do we know Apostolic succession was not broken.
How do we know that earlier forms of the Mass were valid?

Perhaps @edward_george1 or @InThePew would know how to explain this.

God Bless.

 

[edward_george1]

May I ask what motivates the question? What’s the use in entertaining hypotheticals like this, which are predicated on what are frankly impossible premises?

-Fr ACEGC

 

[po18guy]

A couple of thoughts come to mind.

Whence cometh such doubt? You need not answer, but I must ask if you are the slightest bit scrupulous? OCD? If so, there is quite effective, drug-free treatment available: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.

If it is spiritual, the Church has the medicine you need.

 

[tuffsmurf]

Because apostolic succession has been stressed as very important throughout Church history. There was never any time that a non-bishop could ordain priests or other deacons, this goes all the way back to the Apostles who chose their successors themselves.
A bishop cannot “break the line”, even if there have been consecrations that were illegal because the lack of permission from the Pope, they are still valid.
How do you mean that earlier forms of Mass were deficient? The further back you go, the more the mass will be like the “original” mass of the Apostles (today we don’t have enought knowledge about that form of mass).

 

[catholic03]

So, we know that:

A) Early forms of the Mass were valid.
B) All ordinations to the episcopate were valid.

How do we know this for sure?

We must remember that the bishop had to have the right intent for it to be valid. How do we know that every bishop had the correct intent when ordaining people to the priesthood and episcopacy.

 

[po18guy]

Did you not read Father’s advice above?

It “appears” that you may suffer from some form of repetitive or intrusive thoughts. That is not a question for a Church historian. Tell your priest about your serious doubts and follow his direction.

 

[catholic03]

Yes, I have read Father’s advice, and I am sorry. I will not ask any more questions.

Thank you for your help.

 

[catholic03]

Thank you, Father. I agree, the premises are impossible. I am Sorry for being so silly.

And I am also happy that as a priest, you are able to set me straight.

 

[AdamP88]

How do we know Apostolic succession was not broken.

Because it’s documented.

How do we know that earlier forms of the Mass were valid?

Because the Church accepted them and Christ gave the Church the power to do this.

 

[jimXroberts]

This is a mathematician speaking.
Although a new bishop may be consecrated by a single bishop, in practice consecration involves several bishops - often five. Apostolic succession is guaranteed even if only one of those involved is validly consecrated. Perhaps in the history of the Catholic Church there have been “bishops” appointed by kings and emperors, but over a period of time Apostolic succession would prevail.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Although a new bishop may be consecrated by a single bishop, in practice consecration involves several bishops - often five. Apostolic succession is guaranteed even if only one of those involved is validly consecrated. Perhaps in the history of the Catholic Church there have been “bishops” appointed by kings and emperors, but over a period of time Apostolic succession would prevail.

From my understanding of history, although it is true that bishops have been appointed by emperors, they were still validly consecrated by other bishops. The emperor may have put weight on them to do this, and thus maybe lead to people being consecrated who served political rather than godly interests. But I don’t know of any instance of a normal man becoming a bishop (or even a priest for that matter) of the Catholic church soley because an emperor said it was so. Maybe in the Anglican and Lutheran churches that may have occured. But even there I’m not sure.