Rome's Meaningless Claim to "Unbroken Chain Of Succession"

Thoughts of Francis Turrretin ^ | November 26, 2010 | TurretinFan

[RnMomof7]

The following is an example of Rome's claim of "unbroken succession" - provided by pope John Paul II:

Nevertheless, the Roman Pontiffs have exercised their authority in Rome and, according to the conditions and opportunities of the times, have done so in wider and even universal areas, by virtue of their succeeding Peter. Written documents do not tell us how this succession occurred in the first link connecting Peter with the series of the bishops of Rome. It can be deduced, however, by considering everything that Pope Clement states in the letter cited above regarding the appointment of the first bishops and their successors. After recalling that the apostles, "preaching in the countryside and the cities, experienced their first fruits in the Spirit and appointed them bishops and deacons of future believers" (42, 4), St. Clement says in detail that, in order to avoid future conflicts regarding the episcopal dignity, the apostles "appointed those whom we said and then ordered that, after they had died, other proven men would succeed them in their ministry" (44, 2). The historical and canonical means by which that inheritance is passed on to them can change, and have indeed changed. But over the centuries, an unbroken chain links that transition from Peter to his first successor in the Roman See.

(link)

This is a typical claim we hear from Roman Catholics all the time. It sounds great - but is either simply untrue, or totally meaningless. Before we get to the claim itself, look at the wind-up for the claim.

John Paul 2 asserts: "The historical and canonical means by which that inheritance is passed on to them can change, and have indeed changed." Let's be blunt, the reason he thinks it "can change," is the fact that way by which Roman bishops have been appointed has been repeatedly changed. There's no Biblical teaching that the way by which bishops are appointed can change. In fact, if the way by which Roman bishops hadn't changed over the years, we'd probably be told that it was an apostolic tradition that cannot be changed. That's simply an artifact of not having a single, written rule of faith.

But that's only a small part of the reason why the "unbroken chain" claim is bogus. In other words, the fact that they pick bishops today in a way that is different from 100 years ago or 1000 years ago, each of which is different from what is now (100 years ago, there was not an age limit for voting cardinals, and 1000 years ago, there was no college of cardinals) is only one aspect. That's the aspect of the mode of succession. The mode has been broken. Roman bishops are not appointed the way they used to be - and consequently when we hear about an "unbroken chain," it cannot mean that the mechanism of succession itself is unbroken.

Another aspect, and perhaps a bigger one, is the problem of what it would take to make the chain "broken."

Is it time? Ask your Roman Catholic friends (and they are welcome to answer here) how much of a gap would constitute a break. The current way of picking new bishops of Rome necessarily involves there being gaps between the reign of popes. It's not like the British monarchy, where as soon as one monarch dies, a new monarch is automatically apparent because of the rules of hereditary succession.

Thus, there are always gaps and breaks in the chain. There was a time period that elapsed between the death of John Paul II and the election of Joseph Ratzinger (who became known as Benedict XVI).

But there is no actual standard of what gap of time is acceptable, and what gap would break succession. Thus, it is simply impossible to say what gap is acceptable. For example, according to a typical list of popes (example) there was no pope during the whole years 259, 305-307, 639, 1242, 1269-1270, 1293, 1315, and 1416, not to mention the many partial years. That's over a half dozen breaks of over a year.

Being deposed? Benedict IX was deposed twice and restored. His biography states:

The nephew of his two immediate predecessors, Benedict IX was a man of very different character to either of them. He was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter. Regarding it as a sort of heirloom, his father Alberic placed him upon it when a mere youth ... .

It goes on to relate:

Taking advantage of the dissolute life he was leading, one of the factions in the city drove him from it (1044) amid the greatest disorder, and elected an antipope (Sylvester III) in the person of John, Bishop of Sabina (1045 -Ann. Romani, init. Victor, Dialogi, III, init.). Benedict, however, succeeded in expelling Sylvester the same year; but, as some say, that he might marry, he resigned his office into the hands of the Archpriest John Gratian for a large sum. John was then elected pope and became Gregory VI (May, 1045). Repenting of his bargain, Benedict endeavoured to depose Gregory. This resulted in the intervention of King Henry III. Benedict, Sylvester, and Gregory were deposed at the Council of Sutri (1046) and a German bishop (Suidger) became Pope Clement II. After his speedy demise, Benedict again seized Rome (November, 1047), but was driven from it to make way for a second German pope, Damasus II (November, 1048).

(source for biography)

Being outrageously sinful? Alexander VI was another pope who allegedly obtained his position through simony, but that's not perhaps the worst of it. He not only openly acknowledged his children (yes, of course he was not married), but even used his political strength to try either to benefit or exploit them. A very favorable Roman biography of him touches on the matter in this delicate way:

Notwithstanding these and similar actions, which might seem to entitle him to no mean place in the annals of the papacy, Alexander continued as Pope the manner of life that had disgraced his cardinalate (Pastor, op. cit., III, 449 152). A stern Nemesis pursued him till death in the shape of a strong parental affection for his children.

It goes on to say:

An impartial appreciation of the career of this extraordinary person must at once distinguish between the man and the office. "An imperfect setting", says Dr. Pastor (op. cit., III, 475), "does not affect the intrinsic worth of the jewel, nor does the golden coin lose its value when it passes through impure hands. In so far as the priest is a public officer of a holy Church, a blameless life is expected from him, both because he is by his office the model of virtue to whom the laity look up, and because his life, when virtuous, inspires in onlookers respect for the society of which he is an ornament. But the treasures of the Church, her Divine character, her holiness, Divine revelation, the grace of God, spiritual authority, it is well known, are not dependent on the moral character of the agents and officers of the Church. The foremost of her priests cannot diminish by an iota the intrinsic value of the spiritual treasures confided to him." There have been at all times wicked men in the ecclesiastical ranks. Our Lord foretold, as one of its severest trials, the presence in His Church not only of false brethren, but of rulers who would offend, by various forms of selfishness, both the children of the household and "those who are without". Similarly, He compared His beloved spouse, the Church, to a threshing floor, on which fall both chaff and grain until the time of separation. The most severe arraignments of Alexander, because in a sense official, are those of his Catholic contemporaries, Pope Julius II (Gregorovius, VII, 494) and the Augustinian cardinal and reformer, Aegidius of Viterbo, in his manuscript "Historia XX Saeculorum", preserved at Rome in the Bibliotheca Angelica. The Oratorian Raynaldus (d. 1677), who continued the semi-official Annals of Baronius, gave to the world at Rome (ad an. 1460, no. 41) the above-mentioned paternal but severe reproof of the youthful Cardinal by Pius II, and stated elsewhere (ad an. 1495, no. 26) that it was in his time the opinion of historians that Alexander had obtained the papacy partly through money and partly through promises and the persuasion that he would not interfere with the lives of his electors. Mansi, the scholarly Archbishop of Lucca editor and annotator of Raynaldus, says (XI, 4155) that it is easier to keep silence than to write write moderation about this Pope. The severe judgment of the late Cardinal Hergenröther, in his "Kirchengeschichte", or Manual of Church History (4th. ed., Freiburg, 1904, II, 982-983) is too well known to need more than mention.

So little have Catholic historians defended him that in the middle of the nineteenth century Cesare Cantù could write that Alexander VI was the only Pope who had never found an apologist.

(source for biography)

Being a heretic? Honorius I was condemned as a monophosite heretic by centuries of Roman bishops. (see the linked article)

Leaving Rome? For about 70 years (and seven popes), the seat of the papacy was not in Rome but in Avignon, France (see the linked article).

Needing an Ecumenical Council to Jump-Start it? Among the tasks of the Council of Constance (considered the 15th Ecumenical Council by the Roman church) was to, in effect, decide who got to be pope, thereby ending a three-way dispute that had been on-going (link to discussion of council from a Roman Catholic perspective).

How much more broken could it really get? I guess the things above could have happened more often or for longer periods of time - but is that really the appropriate measure of things? I think the short answer is that the claim of an "unbroken chain" of succession is just hot air - an empty claim supported by nothing but the wishful thinking of those who support Rome.

[NRx]

“As far as I am aware, each of these view the others as having valid sacraments and view the moral teachings (how to live) as legitimate. It is the beliefs about God and the Church that are in dispute. NRx, please correct me if I am wrong. “

There is not a uniform understanding of the sacraments. Rome has a differing understanding of grace and the nature of the Church which is very problematic from our POV. The Orthodox Church doesn’t really do the whole “valid” sacraments thing. We refer to sacraments as being with or without grace. And the historic teaching of the Church has been that there are no sacraments outside the Church. Rome has always accepted this, but then turned around and made the teaching meaningless by proposing an invisible church that has no boundaries. Thus from their perspective anyone, including even non-Christians can baptize someone if they use the correct form and matter. This is nonsense from the Orthodox perspective.

[kinsman redeemer]

I always appreciate your posts.

[Alex Murphy]

There is not a uniform understanding of the sacraments. Rome has a differing understanding of grace and the nature of the Church which is very problematic from our POV. The Orthodox Church doesn’t really do the whole “valid” sacraments thing. We refer to sacraments as being with or without grace. And the historic teaching of the Church has been that there are no sacraments outside the Church. Rome has always accepted this, but then turned around and made the teaching meaningless by proposing an invisible church that has no boundaries. Thus from their perspective anyone, including even non-Christians can baptize someone if they use the correct form and matter. This is nonsense from the Orthodox perspective.

Funny how the "two lungs, one church" Catholics don't bother to mention any of this.

[kinsman redeemer]

A lot of lapsed Catholics are on a lifelong guilt trip so they are constantly trying to put down the faith they left and how “wrong” it was.

You say "lapsed". I say "former."

I would only be guilty if I DIDNT include my experience with the Carholic Church as part of my life story- my "testimony" of what God offered and what I received by faith.

One (of the many ) error of the Catholic Church is the guilt that is placed on the minds of their adherents for not following all of their sundry rules ("don't touch, don't eat, make a "good" act of contrition)

I was set free from those chains and I want "unlapsed" Catholics to know that THEY can be set free also.

My "old faith" (as you call it) was not faith at all! It was dependency on a system that has nothing to do with faith in God and what God says. Instead, it was dependency on traditions that man created- for whatever reason...

My faith is in Christ alone. He is my High Priest. He is my Lord.

[NRx]

“Funny how the “two lungs, one church” Catholics don’t bother to mention any of this.”

The two lungs thing sounds disturbingly like a Roman variation of the heretical Anglican branch theory. The Church is One and Undivided.

[impimp]

Then why did just about every Christian the world had ever seen until 600 years ago and disagree with you about Peter.

[avenir]

Your huffing and puffing have failed to blow this house of contention down! Yes, you DO care or you wouldn’t be posting that you “don’t care” on a forum you REALLY didn’t care about.

Right?

[kinsman redeemer]

I'd like to make two points regarding Jn 20:23 "binding"and "loosing" of sin.

You should be extra cautious with any interpretation (use of good exegesis and hermeneutics study principles) whenever a verse stands by itself. The closely related verses are Mt 16:19 and 18:18 (Peter's keys and church discipline, respectively). You should be extra, EXTRA cautious if you're going to base a lot of your doctrine on such a verse (specifically here, confession to your priest and getting absolution and penance.)

Second, the perfect tense used in John 20:23 needs to be part of a good interpretation. Here is the ESV Study Bible note:

The expressions they are forgiven and it is withheld both represent perfect-tense verbs in Greek and could also be translated, “they have been forgiven” and “it has been withheld,” since the perfect gives the sense of completed past action with continuing results in the present. The idea is not that individual Christians or churches have authority on their own to forgive or not forgive people, but rather that as the church proclaims the gospel message of forgiveness of sins in the power of the Holy Spirit (see v. 22), it proclaims that those who believe in Jesus have their sins forgiven, and that those who do not believe in him do not have their sins forgiven—which simply reflects what God in heaven has already done (cf. note on Matt. 16:19).

[BlueDragon]

The two lungs thing sounds disturbingly like a Roman variation of the heretical Anglican branch theory. The Church is One and Undivided.

You mean Rome can't be one lung and the earthly head all at the same time? No lung at all? Not part of the One Undivided?

Just what are you trying to say?

I mean, other than the usual, primary & foremost --- Anglicans-ruas pronunciations from so-called Orthodox perspective, just where is the RCC left?

Crazy Aunt in the basement?

Or United as One, even though they have some wacky ideas like all must be subject to the bishop of Rome and the magical mystery tour (RC) Magesterium?

Stewie has blisters on his fingers

[Rashputin]

Tisk, tisk, right to personal stuff.

And here I thought this forum had tight rules.

[BlueDragon]

Tisk, tisk, right to personal stuff.

What do mean "personal stuff"?

A person can ask a question.

It's insults that are the getting personal that is discouraged.

And here I thought this forum had tight rules.

What rule was broken -- and how?

Or, just forget that question, and go back to Murphy's line of inquiry.

Here's part of it again;

What do you believe defines the "common ground" and "common Christian principles" that Christians should get together on? Please tell us what you yourself did today, to "get Christians together on common ground to try and resist the wave of diabolical delusion sweeping our nation".

Should all Christians vote like Catholics?

Should they? How do 'Catholics' vote...how do other Christians tend to vote may be needed to be examined before venturing answer?

Perhaps ask yourself what you have done which goes against bringing Christians together on common grounds?

[Rashputin]

So the meaning of the words, "you" and "yourself" have different meanings when used by anti-Catholics than when used by Catholics?

Interesting, just like interpreting Scripture to suit themselves anti-Catholic folks interpret the English language in a way that suits them at the moment.

[BlueDragon]

So the meaning of the words, "you" and "yourself" have different meanings when used by anti-Catholics than when used by Catholics?

That's just more questions, with no answers given by yourself.

If there was usage of the word "you" which led to making a thing personal, in ways which are prohibited, check the context of that usage.

Otherwise the word "you" is not entirely prohibited.

Now, tell us what rule Murphy is alleged to have broken. Explain to the forum here how that would be so.

[Rashputin]

"Please tell us what you yourself did today . . . 

Posts have been deleted for that exact same sort of question albeit when it was a Catholic asking that question of an anti-Catholic.

you have a nice day now, ya' hear?

[NKP_Vet]

“A lot of Catholics are on a lifelong pride trip”

You damn right. Couldn’t have said it better. Thanks.

[trebb]

Matthew 16:18-20 are nice, but there doesn't seem to be a design for the "unbroken succession" that the article posted attacks.

It can be taken several ways and it seems that the beginning of an unbroken succession requires the furthest reach.

Prior to those lines, Jesus asks Peter who He is and Peter tells Him he is the Messiah. He tells Peter that the knowledge of that was put into his head directly from God. Then he makes the statement about building the Church on this rock.

[metmom]

These people can take a trip without ever leaving the farm...

FOTFLOL!!!!!!

[metmom]

So in the span of less than three hours or so we have proven that catholics do make their own personal interpretation of Scripture.

And the best part......we used catholic sources to prove it!

You can't make this stuff up.

Well.....maybe catholics can (and do), but you get the idea!

Funny, that......

[metmom]

So in the span of less than three hours or so we have proven that catholics do make their own personal interpretation of Scripture.

And the best part......we used catholic sources to prove it!

You can't make this stuff up.

Well.....maybe catholics can (and do), but you get the idea!

In before. *they aren't REALLY "Catholic" sources. They aren't infallibly declared, are they?????? Hunh????

[metmom]

1 John 1:0 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

We don’t NEED a priest. We have the promise of God given us through the Holy Spirit that He will do what he says.

Rome uses that verse to maintain a stranglehold on people and demand their compliance or they’ll threaten them with their eternal destiny.

The epitome of job security.