Will the real successor of Peter please stand up

[Ghosty]

By being elected and consecrated to the Seat of Peter, he becomes the successor of Peter and of the episcopal lineage of Peter.

I would say that he becomes of the “papal” lineage of Peter, not the episcopal, in order to distinguish the two. The Pope was a bishop long before he was Pope, so he had a different episcopal lineage.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ghosty:

I would say that he becomes of the “papal” lineage of Peter, not the episcopal, in order to distinguish the two. The Pope was a bishop long before he was Pope, so he had a different episcopal lineage.

The Pope need not be a bishop, or even a priest at the time of election. The act of consecration makes him of the lineage of Peter, however he was baptized or previously consecrated.

We are all adopted sons of the Apostles, are we not? None of us claim blood kin. Therefore the act of adoption establishes the lineage. You might be baptized by a priest (or even a layman) of the lineage of Thomas, consecrated a priest by a bishop of the lineage of John, and later consecrated a Bishop by other bishops of the lineage of Peter, Bartholomew and James.

What then would be YOUR lineage?

 

[Sean_O_L]

gelsbern wrote:

Prove it. His lineage may go back to Matthew, or Bartholomew or any of the other twelve. As I said there is a difference between the apostolic succession of a Bishop, and being a successor the the See of Peter.

Easy!

The Dogmas of the Faith which are required to be believed by anyone wishing to be known as Catholic include the following:

The powers bestowed on the Apostles have descended to the bishops. (De fide.)

Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible head of the whole Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to the primacy of jurisdiction. (De fide.)

According to Christ’s ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time. (De fide.)

The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome. (De fide.)

The definition of heresy per the Code of Canon Law, Canon. 751 says:

Heresy is the obstinate denial OR doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith.

I hope, gelsbern, that you do not “obstinately” continue to hold the “doubt” that the Bishops of Rome are not and will continue to be the succesors of St Peter, OR that you deny the same.

 

[Ghosty]

The Pope need not be a bishop, or even a priest at the time of election. The act of consecration makes him of the lineage of Peter, however he was baptized or previously consecrated.

Of course! I’m just saying that in this particular case of John Paul II, people seem to be talking past eachother. I think we can rightly say that the lineage of Peter as “pope” is distinct from his lineage as a bishop/Apostle. Without this distinction, we’re left trying to justify why the other bishops that Peter ordained were not “the pope”.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ghosty:

Of course! I’m just saying that in this particular case of John Paul II, people seem to be talking past eachother. I think we can rightly say that the lineage of Peter as “pope” is distinct from his lineage as a bishop/Apostle. Without this distinction, we’re left trying to justify why the other bishops that Peter ordained were not “the pope”.

John Paul II is Pope because he was elected and consecrated Bishop of Rome. That’s all that need be said.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Sean and Vern: With respect, I think the argument being made is this:

HHJPII is the successor to Saint Peter by virtue of his election (and his acceptance of it) to the Apostolic See, which is different from his episcopal consecration (which he had before that election, as a Polish Bishop) which may or may not stem from Saint Peter, but certainly stems from one of the Twelve. I’m just attempting to clarify. As far as his consecration goes, the Holy Father is like any other bishop.

 

[Ghosty]

HHJPII is the successor to Saint Peter by virtue of his election (and his acceptance of it) to the Apostolic See, which is different from his episcopal consecration (which he had before that election, as a Polish Bishop) which may or may not stem from Saint Peter, but certainly stems from one of the Twelve. I’m just attempting to clarify. As far as his consecration goes, the Holy Father is like any other bishop.

Precisely, and admitting that pulls the rug out from underneath any “The Bishop of Antioch is the REAL Pope” style arguments.

 

[vern_humphrey]

JKirkLVNV:

Sean and Vern: With respect, I think the argument being made is this:

HHJPII is the successor to Saint Peter by virtue of his election (and his acceptance of it) to the Apostolic See, which is different from his episcopal consecration (which he had before that election, as a Polish Bishop) which may or may not stem from Saint Peter, but certainly stems from one of the Twelve. I’m just attempting to clarify. As far as his consecration goes, the Holy Father is like any other bishop.

Now give me a definition of “lineage.”

Baptism makes us Christians – does our lineage derive through baptism?

Does it derive through Holy Orders as a priest or deacon?

Does it derive through Holy Orders (consecration) as a bishop?

And if the latter, what about consecration where SEVERAL bishops participate in the laying on of hands? From which bishop does the new bishop take his lineage?

 

[gelsbern]

Lay people do not have any apostolic lineage.

Deacons/Priests do not recieve apostolic lineage at their ordination, however they get the assurance of their orders being valid from the lineage of the ordaining bishop.

Someone who is consecrated a bishop gets his apostolic lineage through his consecrator (and co-consecrators).

Every Bishop can trace his apostolic lineage (succession) back to one of the 12 apostles. And by 12 apostles, we mean the ones that existed in the book of Acts.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

vern humphrey:

Now give me a definition of “lineage.”

Baptism makes us Christians – does our lineage derive through baptism?

Does it derive through Holy Orders as a priest or deacon?

Does it derive through Holy Orders (consecration) as a bishop?

And if the latter, what about consecration where SEVERAL bishops participate in the laying on of hands? From which bishop does the new bishop take his lineage?

Oh, he takes his linage from all of them! I think when they list it in the big lists, it most often taken from his principal consecrator, but he shares in the lineage of all the bishops who take lay their hands on him. My point was that when people speak of the pope as being a successor to Saint Peter (and he actually succeeds to Saint Peter himself, not to his immediate predecessors) it isn’t refering to the apostolic succession or lineage of that particular bishop who’s been elected pope, it’s refering to his lawful assumption of the Chair of Peter. Any newly elected bishop of Rome isn’t consecrated as bishop of Rome, unless he’s not already a bishop (as I believe you rightly pointed out). He’s installed or inaugurated or crowned (depending on his personal decision), but not consecrated. And if he weren’t a bishop and had to be consecrated as such upon election, his episcopal lineage would be derived through the Bishop who consecrated him (I’m not sure, but I think it’s the Camerlengo). It may or may not go back to Saint Peter, but certainly goes back to one of the Twelve and might well, in individual instances, go back to Saint Peter. Of course, one’s episcopal lineage doesn’t lessen one’s authority as keeper of the Keys and Vicar of Christ.

 

[CreosMary]

Fr Ambrose:

Rome did not always hold to what has become contemporary teaching about the nature and supremacy of its place in the Church.

When Saint Columban was having his exchange of letters with Pope Boniface in the 7th century we see the older and more balanced approach to the significance of Rome…
Saint Columbanus writes to the Pope:“On account of the two Apostles of Christ, you are almost celestial, and Rome is the head of the whole world, and of the Churches”.
Note that it is on account of the TWO Apostles (Peter AND Paul) - the modern teaching which focuses all power in Peter had not developed in the 7th century. Rome was central because two major Apostles had taught there and been martyred there. This is a constant theme -Peter and

Paul as co-founders of Rome- in all the writings of the Church Fathers. Starting from roughly the 9th century, Rome starts to downplay the significance of Paul and begins to emphasis the importance of Peter alone.
Saint Columban writes in the same letter to the Pope:
“For we are the disciples of Saints Peter and Paul, and of all those their disciples who by the Holy Ghost have written the divine canon”
The Orthodox have NO problem with any of what Saint Columban has written. He is speaking out of an Orthodox mindset which was, in his time, the norm in the West as well as the East. And, please God, it will be the norm again one day so that unity may be restored to Christendom.

---

   "Remove not  the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set"

-Proverbs 22.28

St Peter was handed the keys by Christ, St Paul was not a disciple of the earthly Christ. St Paul did have a valid apostolate but not in any heirachical way, He had to learn everything from St Peter after his conversion on the Damascus Road.
Christ willed that Peter be Head of his Church and as we know the Holy Spirit guides the Holy Roman Catholic Church so that it cannot err on Faith and morals.
As for the Orthodox, they seem to fail on some counts of morality such as abortion. Only the Sucssesor of St Peter Definativetly and reliably instructs the Church and the whole world on Christ’s way of life.
Whether both preached in Rome is not relevant, St Peter was always the final adjucator and is Bishop of Rome, He was matryed there and he holds the keys.
Let us not get caught too much in various interpretations of history, for we know how easily that can be misrepresented, but let us have Faith in the Gods Holy Church…based in Rome
God Bless

 

[Sean_O_L]

JKirkLVNV

Re: Will the real successor of Peter please stand up.

---

Sean and Vern: With respect, I think the argument being made is this:

HHJPII is the successor to Saint Peter by virtue of his election (and his acceptance of it) to the Apostolic See, which is different from his episcopal consecration (which he had before that election, as a Polish Bishop) which may or may not stem from Saint Peter, but certainly stems from one of the Twelve. I’m just attempting to clarify. As far as his consecration goes, the Holy Father is like any other bishop.

I agree entirely with what you are saying - with the following exceptions:

1. The “Subject” is: “Will the real successor of St Peter please stand up” - which begs the question: What has the questioner have in mind? That Pope John Paul II and his predecessors are NOT the “real” succesors of St Peter?
2. What you have written is NOT the argument being made - it is an answer to the arguments made.
3. It is my belief that it certainly was NOT the position held by gelsbern and NOT the answer to HIS position. However, I will be happy to hear him positively declare that his challenge “Prove it” has been satisfactorily resolved, and he holds to the Dogma of the Faith that, specifically, Pope John Paul II IS the current Successor of St Peter.

 

[Sean_O_L]

gelsbern wrote:

Someone who is consecrated a bishop gets his apostolic lineage through his consecrator (and co-consecrators).

Every Bishop can trace his apostolic lineage (succession) back to one of the 12 apostles. And by 12 apostles, we mean the ones that existed in the book of Acts.

This is illogical and contradictory:

1. You state that the apostolic lineage comes from consecrator AND co-consecrators (possibly from 2 further lineages); but
2. Limit “every Bishop” to the lineage of only one of the 12 apostles.

You appear to be unaware of the facts that

a) One bishop is required for validity, but

b) normally at least a further two bishops are required as co-consecrators, for liceity.

c) when tracing a lineage, the normal pattern is to note the principal consecrator’s pedigree.

 

[gelsbern]

Sean O L:

gelsbern wrote:

This is illogical and contradictory:

1. You state that the apostolic lineage comes from consecrator AND co-consecrators (possibly from 2 further lineages); but
2. Limit “every Bishop” to the lineage of only one of the 12 apostles.

You appear to be unaware of the facts that

a) One bishop is required for validity, but

b) normally at least a further two bishops are required as co-consecrators, for liceity.

c) when tracing a lineage, the normal pattern is to note the principal consecrator’s pedigree.

Now you are nitpicking. Yes the primary consecrator is where the lineage comes from, but the co-consecrators are there in case there is any irregularities with the primary consecrator. A single bishop can licitly consecrate another bishop without co-consecrators. If there are irregularities with the primary consecrator, then the lineage automatically falls to one of the two co-consecrators.

Oh and in response, Pope John Paull II is the true successor to the See of Peter.

 

[TheGarg]

gelsbern:

By the Bishop the Consecrated him.

So far I can find a lineage back to SCIPIONE REBIBA in 1541, but the documentation is fuzzy.

ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/johnpaul.htm

ALL BISHOPS HAVE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

Let’s hypothetically do it like this so that I can explain.

St. Mark a bishop of the Church, consecrated Ted as a bishop,
Ted then consecrates Fred,
Fred then consecrates Larry.
Larry is elected as Pope. Larry is successor to the See of Peter but his apostolic succession goes back to St. Mark.
Now anyone who Larry consecrates gives them an apostolic succession that still leads to St. Mark, not Peter.

I guess that’s about the best way I can explain it.

IN the front of my NASB Catholic Bible, It lists the succession of popes from Peter…

but of coure if you need to do it on line, I googled, “successcion of popes”, and of course it corrected my spelling, to " of popessuccession " and then when i clicked that link…I chose the FIRST option…

“CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: List of Popes
Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > P > The List of Popes. … The List of Popes. …
www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm - 32k - Cached - Similar pages http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm” -----(google, 2005)

Talk about an uphill battle! it took me nearly 1/10 the time it took to type this post as it did to find the information you wree looking for.
this sarcasm of course is why I’ll never make pope…

 

[Sean_O_L]

gelsbern wrote:

Now you are nitpicking. Yes the primary consecrator is where the lineage comes from, but the co-consecrators are there in case there is any irregularities with the primary consecrator. A single bishop can licitly consecrate another bishop without co-consecrators. If there are irregularities with the primary consecrator, then the lineage automatically falls to one of the two co-consecrators.

Oh and in response, Pope John Paull II is the true successor to the See of Peter.

Accuracy prevents “nitpicking”, gelsbern! You were not accurate.

On that line: “A single bishop can licitly” AND validly “consecrate another bishop without co-consecrators” PROVIDING that "a dispensation has been granted by the Apostolic See. (cf. Canon 1014 CCI).

Applying this to the Lefebvran consecrations (in addition to disobeying the direct order of the Supreme Pontiff, Lawmaker and Interpreter ) those consecrations were valid but illicit, for there was only one co-consecrator.

Thank you for agreeing that Pope John Paul II is the true successor to St Peter.

 

[gelsbern]

I am done responding to you anymore, we aren’t making cases in court, we are having discussions and debates.

God Bless.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Sean O L:

JKirkLVNV

I agree entirely with what you are saying - with the following exceptions:

1. The “Subject” is: “Will the real successor of St Peter please stand up” - which begs the question: What has the questioner have in mind? That Pope John Paul II and his predecessors are NOT the “real” succesors of St Peter?
2. What you have written is NOT the argument being made - it is an answer to the arguments made.
3. It is my belief that it certainly was NOT the position held by gelsbern and NOT the answer to HIS position. However, I will be happy to hear him positively declare that his challenge “Prove it” has been satisfactorily resolved, and he holds to the Dogma of the Faith that, specifically, Pope John Paul II IS the current Successor of St Peter.

Ah, I see! I thought I’d read all the posts, but didn’t get this. My apologies to you and Vern!

 

[Ignatius]

Madaglan:

Hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but I believe that Ignatius attaches the word “presidency” to the “church of Rome,” and not necessarily the bishop of Rome.

He was writing to the Bishop. It’s a pretty convoluted to try and imply that he was writing to a church not a person.

Now one for you, Why would he not have written “because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” to Antioc or Alexandria if that is where the presidency in love resided?

 

[santaro75]

Of course there are many ways to refute the primacey of the roman church. But for me, not knowing a lot about church history, it seems too big a coincedence that Jesus gave Peter authority and promised his church would prevail and the fact that the Roman church is the most powerful and visible christian church in the history of christianity.

Well, some may say the church is evil and there is evil in the church but what other church can claim to be the one jesus described in a literal way?