Apostolic Succession

[Quiddity]

Why would you consider that a reasonable assumption for the whole of Church history?

There have been plenty of events that have disrupted regular parish goings-on, and there have been plenty of incidents through history where entire parish churches or their records were destroyed by war or sectarian turmoil.


That's only one example; my point was that it's concievable that under the rules and laws of the Catholic Church, it's possible for even a genuine, honest man to go through the rituals and not be a valid bishop. On top of this, there is the possibility of genuine deception:

When we look at the last two thousand years of Christian history, we can see that "people who didn't move around too much" spread Christianity outward from Rome, and then:

- moved from Roman Britain into Pagan Ireland
- moved from France into Britain with the Norman conquest
- moved all over Europe to avoid successive plagues
- moved all over Europe to avoid successive wars
- explored the world and colonized vast swaths of it
- spread missionaries all over the planet

There are plenty of times throughout the last 2000 years of history where it was far from a simple matter for a representative of the Church to confirm details about a candidate for bishophood.

Put yourself in the position of, say, Bishop of Quebec Francois de Laval circa 1670. A "priest" comes before you bearing letters from Rome (genuine, but stolen - he killed a priest travelling to the port in France and decided to take his place on the ship to the New World) instructing you to place him in a parish church. It would take a year or more to get a message to Rome to ask for confirmation, and any response would appear to confirm the interloper - after all, he fits the general description of the right man, and there was no photo ID in the 17th century.

As the Church in the New World expands, what would happen if that "priest" was elevated to bishop of his own diocese?

With countless possibilities of events like this throughout the last two thousand years of history, how can it be reasonable to assume that the events resolved themselves in favour of Apostolic Succession every single time so that every single bishop in the Catholic Church today is valid?

Because the due process between a priest and a Bishop is the difference between a city councilman and a governer of a state. Even with all you mentioned, it's highly unlikely such a thing would happen in the high ranks of Bishopric. Priest can go years without being noticed, that's not necessarily the case with Bishops.

I'm sure it wasn't as meticulous back in the days (due to resources) but this is how they do it now:
Code of Canon Law: text - IntraText CT

Although countless of possibilites have been possible throughout history, it's more rare then not.

 

[Smoke]

Apostolic succession is not done in a vacuum, it requires papal approval.

No, it doesn't. That's why Rome is able to recognize the orders of the Eastern and Old Catholic churches.

This is why the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre without such approval resulted in automatic excommunication for the new bishops and the one who consecrated them.

The bishops of the SSPX may be excommunicated, and their consecrations are definitely illicit as far as Rome is concerned, but even Pope Benny would recognize that their consecrations are valid.

I thought it took three bishops to make a new bishop.

In the Eastern Orthodox Churches, it is preferred that there be at least three consecrators, but in a pinch, and with synodal approval, two or even one might do. Three bishops aren't sacramentally necessary; the idea is to prevent rogue bishops from creating a schism.

 

[lunamoth]

In the Eastern Orthodox Churches, it is preferred that there be at least three consecrators, but in a pinch, and with synodal approval, two or even one might do. Three bishops aren't sacramentally necessary; the idea is to prevent rogue bishops from creating a schism.

In the Episcopal Church also the rule is three. Not sure what if any exceptions there might be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because the due process between a priest and a Bishop is the difference between a city councilman and a governer of a state. Even with all you mentioned, it's highly unlikely such a thing would happen in the high ranks of Bishopric. Priest can go years without being noticed, that's not necessarily the case with Bishops.

I'm sure it wasn't as meticulous back in the days (due to resources) but this is how they do it now:
Code of Canon Law: text - IntraText CT

But like I pointed out, things used to be quite different. Distances that we think nothing of today were major obstacles in the days of muscle- and wind-powered transport. I'm sure there were several centuries where the sorts of checks we take for granted now just couldn't be made. A bishop or potentially even an archbishop might go decades without setting foot in the Vatican, if they ever did at all.

Plus, consider the bouts of upheaval that the Church has gone through. Do you think every "i" was being dotted and every "t" crossed while the Great Western Schism or the Protestant Reformation were going on? How about during the several occupations and/or plagues of Rome?

Although countless of possibilites have been possible throughout history, it's more rare then not.

But it only takes one for the whole idea of Apostolic Succession to fall apart.

 

[Francine]

The bishops of the SSPX may be excommunicated, and their consecrations are definitely illicit as far as Rome is concerned, but even Pope Benny would recognize that their consecrations are valid.

Not so. After Henry the 8th broke off relations with Rome, the Pope declared Anglican Holy Orders null and void. The Church of England was deep in the Western tradition and could not gradually go their own way like what happened in the split between Rome and Constantinople.

 

[Smoke]

Not so. After Henry the 8th broke off relations with Rome, the Pope declared Anglican Holy Orders null and void. The Church of England was deep in the Western tradition and could not gradually go their own way like what happened in the split between Rome and Constantinople.

The Old Catholics didn't go their way gradually, either; their break with Rome was every bit as sharp, if not sharper, than LeFebvre's. Yet Rome recognizes the validity of their orders.

The Vatican considers Anglican orders null and void because they are (or at least, they were for long enough to disrupt succession) deficient in form and intent. That objection doesn't apply to the Old Catholics or to the SSPX.

 

[Quiddity]

But it only takes one for the whole idea of Apostolic Succession to fall apart.

Why is that?

 

[Francine]

No, it doesn't. That's why Rome is able to recognize the orders of the Eastern and Old Catholic churches.

Okay, it requires the approval of the cognizant Patriarch. The Pope is the Patriarch of the West.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is that?

At least as I understand the Catechism, the valid ministers of the Sacrament of Holy Orders are bishops. If a bishop was not validly ordained himself, then in the eyes of the Church he is unable to perform the Sacrament, and any "bishops" he "ordains" wouldn't actually be bishops either, and neither would the bishops they "ordain", and so on, and so on.

 

[Quiddity]

At least as I understand the Catechism, the valid ministers of the Sacrament of Holy Orders are bishops. If a bishop was not validly ordained himself, then in the eyes of the Church he is unable to perform the Sacrament, and any "bishops" he "ordains" wouldn't actually be bishops either, and neither would the bishops they "ordain", and so on, and so on.

Yeah, but you said the whole thing fall aparts. If only one of the twelve is a fraud, then Apostolic Succession is alive on the other eleven. So I don't understand why you think it voids the whole structure.

On top of that, Holy Orders are reaffirmed in front of the brethren every year. So any fradulent behaivor would be flushed out with the sincerity and hearts of the current lineage by the Bishop or Bishops if it happen to be the Bishop.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, but you said the whole thing fall aparts. If only one of the twelve is a fraud, then Apostolic Succession is alive on the other eleven. So I don't understand why you think it voids the whole structure.

It doesn't void the whole structure, but it does void the idea that Apostolic Succession assures you that your parish priest is actually a priest, and all the things that this would imply (does a Eucharistic wafer become the body of Christ if it's just some guy doing the ceremony? What about forgiveness of sins through confession, repentance and contrition?)

On top of that, Holy Orders are reaffirmed in front of the brethren every year. So any fradulent behaivor would be flushed out with the sincerity and hearts of the current lineage by the Bishop or Bishops if it happen to be the Bishop.

What do you mean?

And I'm not sure how "flushing out fraudulent behaviour" would eliminate every possible threat to apostolic succession. For example, what about a woman who feels called to hide her gender and join the priesthood? What about a genuine believer who was misled into believing that he had been baptised? People like that, or charlatans who are very good at what they do, could conceivably escape detection for life.

 

[Smoke]

Okay, it requires the approval of the cognizant Patriarch. The Pope is the Patriarch of the West.

AAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!! I don't even care about this! Why can't I just let it go?

The Old Catholics are Westerners, and the Pope would be their Patriarch. No patriarchal approval is necessary for validity and apostolic succession. Not in the view of the Vatican. Seriously.

 

[Francine]

AAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!! I don't even care about this! Why can't I just let it go?

Let me help us both out by making this my last post in this thread.

 

[Quiddity]

It doesn't void the whole structure, but it does void the idea that Apostolic Succession assures you that your parish priest is actually a priest, and all the things that this would imply (does a Eucharistic wafer become the body of Christ if it's just some guy doing the ceremony? What about forgiveness of sins through confession, repentance and contrition?)

What do you mean?

And I'm not sure how "flushing out fraudulent behaviour" would eliminate every possible threat to apostolic succession. For example, what about a woman who feels called to hide her gender and join the priesthood? What about a genuine believer who was misled into believing that he had been baptised? People like that, or charlatans who are very good at what they do, could conceivably escape detection for life.

Let's say a priest was ordained by a fradulent Bishop (which has happened). The priest could have his sacraments made valid if he so chooses to. Now if he wishes to continue his predecessor's law breaking and the people are unaware of it, how can you blame them?

Apostolic Succession is still alive with fraud. Unless of course you kill every single Bishop.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's say a priest was ordained by a fradulent Bishop (which has happened). The priest could have his sacraments made valid if he so chooses to. Now if he wishes to continue his predecessor's law breaking and the people are unaware of it, how can you blame them?

In the case of known frauds, I can see where you're coming from. What about unknown frauds, though? What about frauds that don't come to light for ages, and the records of who was ordained by the fraudulent bishop (and on down the line) are incomplete? What about frauds that are never discovered?

 

[Quiddity]

In the case of known frauds, I can see where you're coming from. What about unknown frauds, though? What about frauds that don't come to light for ages, and the records of who was ordained by the fraudulent bishop (and on down the line) are incomplete? What about frauds that are never discovered?

Unless the current people are all in on it, the annual calling to confirm Holy Orders would put that to rest don't you think?

It's basically when all the priest (or bishops) come together to confirm there orders. So even if unnoticed fraud was committed, the affirmation would make it valid.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unless the current people are all in on it, the annual calling to confirm Holy Orders would put that to rest don't you think?

It's basically when all the priest (or bishops) come together to confirm there orders. So even if unnoticed fraud was committed, the affirmation would make it valid.

I don't know about the tradition. Is the ceremony actually considered a sacrament?

 

[Quiddity]

I don't know about the tradition. Is the ceremony actually considered a sacrament?

Actually, no. But what happens is that all documents are revisited. It involves quite an extensive look that goes all the way to Rome. For the slim chance that one does happen to get by, (he had to have paid off the seminary, the clerk at the Vatican, and a number of other officials) what can you but leave it to God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, no. But what happens is that all documents are revisited. It involves quite an extensive look that goes all the way to Rome. For the slim chance that one does happen to get by, (he had to have paid off the seminary, the clerk at the Vatican, and a number of other officials) what can you but leave it to God?

Still doesn't get rid of the problems I mentioned, though:

- a French priest is in Paris on his way from Rome to Bordeaux to catch a ship to the New World. While he's there, he's killed and the murderer takes his personal effects, dumps the body in the Seine and takes his place on the ship to New France. Every time any inquiry is made of his documents, the Vatican replies, "yep, he's legitimate - everything's genuine", because the Vatican doesn't know the difference.

- a man from some war-torn or plague-ridden parish enters the seminary and becomes a priest. He was told that he had been baptised, but this was incorrect - either his parents outright lied to him, or perhaps the proper form of baptism wasn't used... in any case, he's unbaptized and doesn't know it.

- a woman hides her gender and enters the seminary. She goes through all the proper steps to become a priest and then a bishop, but she's actually ineligible for all of them, so the sacrament of Holy Orders was invalid, and she's not really a bishop. Despite this, she has all the proper documentation and support.

Also, I don't see how much checking of bishops could be done at all during the first few centuries of Christianity when it was still illegal and underground. If you don't have that foundation, then you don't have Apostolic Succession, do you?

 

[Quiddity]

Still doesn't get rid of the problems I mentioned, though:

- a French priest is in Paris on his way from Rome to Bordeaux to catch a ship to the New World. While he's there, he's killed and the murderer takes his personal effects, dumps the body in the Seine and takes his place on the ship to New France. Every time any inquiry is made of his documents, the Vatican replies, "yep, he's legitimate - everything's genuine", because the Vatican doesn't know the difference.

He's a priest. Everything dies with him.

- a man from some war-torn or plague-ridden parish enters the seminary and becomes a priest. He was told that he had been baptised, but this was incorrect - either his parents outright lied to him, or perhaps the proper form of baptism wasn't used... in any case, he's unbaptized and doesn't know it.

If he entered the seminary they'd find out. But to entertain your hypothetical; it also dies with him.

- a woman hides her gender and enters the seminary. She goes through all the proper steps to become a priest and then a bishop, but she's actually ineligible for all of them, so the sacrament of Holy Orders was invalid, and she's not really a bishop. Despite this, she has all the proper documentation and support.

Again, the invalid orders dies with her.

Also, I don't see how much checking of bishops could be done at all during the first few centuries of Christianity when it was still illegal and underground. If you don't have that foundation, then you don't have Apostolic Succession, do you?

Don't see how. Especially since more then one Bishop gets involved and the Vatican as well. Did you see what is required to even be considered or the prerequisites? I mean, even in the first century people did what they could to keep records. What your suggesting is like an entire conspiracy of invalid Bishops; which even if true can fix itself in time through those who have proper orders. Why? Because only the valid orders get passed on, not the invalid ones.