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.

[af_vet_1981]

I know, right? And the thing is, they never even listen to what they are saying!

False, if you are writing of me. Which Protestant derived faith community did you abandon ? What drove that decision ?

[BlueDragon]

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

I don't believe that.

But I do notice that of the more primary questions ---- none were answered.

[MamaB]

Something happened years ago which devastated me. I chose to forgive. People think I am nuttier than I am for that. But, like I told them, Jesus taught forgiveness. If I had held a grudge, it would have been me “paying the price.”.

[af_vet_1981]

Why do you add, "so to speak"?

It is used to show that what I am writing is not to be understood as a pro forma acceptance of the use of the term in and of itself. When a Protestant denomination or derived faith community marries two people of the same gender, is it a marriage, so to speak ?

[MamaB]

I just have to LOL.

[MamaB]

The Lord’s Prayer was an example on how to pray.

[Alex Murphy]

....there are always gaps and breaks in the chain...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?
....Being outrageously sinful?
....Being a heretic?
....Leaving Rome?
....Needing an Ecumenical Council to Jump-Start it?

....How much more broken could it really get?

Offering up the guise of apostolic succession raises all sorts of questions when Rome has to "self-correct" itself from bad popes. The unreliability of apostolic succession is demonstrated by Rome's having chosen "bad" popes in the first place, demonstrating that they failed to heed the infallible and inerrant guidance of their predecessors:

Protestants have reacted strongly against the doctrine of apostolic succession. They have done so in a number of ways, historical and theological. One of these ways is by affirming the apostolicity of the church. Apostolicity may be defined as receiving and obeying apostolic doctrine as it is set forth in the New Testament. In matters of doctrine and life, Protestants permit no ultimate appeal to traditions that are distinct from canonical Scripture.... ....Even if it were historically provable that there was an unbroken succession of bishops from the first century to the present day Roman Catholic bishops (and it is not), Protestants would still demur to claims of Roman authority based upon apostolic succession. It is the apostolicity of the church that counts. And it is precisely by the standard of apostolicity that the Roman Catholic Church is measured and found wanting.
-- from the thread Apostolic Succession and the Roman Catholic Church

The theory behind apostolic succession is that God's authority, to be meaningful and effective, must be embodied in men today who have the same kind of authority [as the original apostles]. But if you will read carefully the following passage, you will see that this is not true at all.

In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul - who was not physically present in Corinth - wrote to them to tell them what to do with respect to a discipline case. He said (in 5:4-5) "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." So you see, Paul did not pass on his authority to another man so that he could be there in Corinth. No, Paul said, in effect, if you will do what I as an apostle now instruct you to do then I will be with you in spirit, and you will also have the power of our Lord Jesus with you, to deliver that man to Satan etc.

So, to put it simply, the Reformers realized that there was no need for apostolic successors. No, the need was simply to have the apostles themselves with us through their inspired and inerrant teaching. And that is what we have in the New Testament.

The apostles never wrote anything that ever has needed or ever will need correction because they were inspired by God. Surely a person of average intelligence should be able to see that this has never been true of other men in history no matter how strongly they may have believed themselves to be apostolic successors!
-- from the thread Apostolic Succession and Protestantism

[kinsman redeemer]

...do you still say the "Our Father ?"

I read Mt 6:9-13 and Lk 11:2-4 and I learn the form of prayer- just as the Lord intended.

Do you hunt rabbits?

o do you agree that the so-called Sinner's Prayer is a relatively new marketing tool to generate so-called decisions in certain denominations, faith communities, and sects ?
o Which Protestant derived group baptized you, so to speak ?
o do you still say the "Our Father ?"

Each of your questions is antagonistic ("so-called", "marketing tool", "derived group", and "so to speak". Elsewhere in the forum you take the same tact.

.

You don't respond to the content of what I say, you respond with new questions.

Therefore, Good-bye.

[RnMomof7]

Bump !!

[NRx]

” 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?”

Rome is either THE CHURCH or she is at the very least in schism from it.

“...from so-called Orthodox perspective, just where is the RCC left?”

Rome has been in schism from the Church for centuries and has made some disturbing additions to the Deposit of the Faith.

“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?”

See above. The claims of the First Vatican Council
are universally rejected in Orthodoxy as a theological innovation.

[RnMomof7]

Ugg. The annulment issue has been explained to you so many times. Typing your lie over and over again doesn’t make it true

Can you show us where Christ gave the apostles the infallible authority to decide what marriages HE CONSIDERS" INVALID"?

The audacity of Rome to think it can read the mind of God.. and know what marriages He has not "joined together" ...that He has had allowed to live in fornication and produce a bunch of bastards...

Annulments are nothing but Rome dancing around divorce ...

[Tao Yin]

You have Scripture and hundreds of millions of protestants each with their own separate but equal personal interpretations of what that scripture means, each acting like their own little gods who know better than anyone what scripture means.

I'm not sure you understand how this protestant thing works. Sure, some believe in the anything goes, personal interpretation, what the words says to me today approach.

Others are part of a disciplined group of believers who are members of declared synods: people who walk together in faith. As part of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, we hold that Scripture is the supreme Truth and the Book of Concord is in complete agreement with that Truth.

Members of our synod are not free to interpret any verse in any way they see fit. If their interpretation disagrees with our confessional documents, their errors will be shown in scripture. If they maintain their error, pastors can be removed from office, while a member of the laity may be refused communion if the error is grave enough.

[BlueDragon]

See above. The claims of the First Vatican Council are universally rejected in Orthodoxy as a theological innovation.

I think Ratzinger, before he was 'pope' anyway, understood what you mean, and all but concedes the point...

From page 198 of Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology;

"We may not interpret as truth that which is, in reality, a historical development with a more or less close relationship to truth."

Check the context. He knew then that "papacy" as defined by Rome is not actual truth.

A "more or less" close relationship?

He's trying to apologize for the error(s) which have built up over the centuries, without having to confess that they (the RCC) are truly wrong to have developed such theological monstrosities as they have.

And then here, apparently speaking to [Roman] Catholics;

Nor is it possible, on the other hand for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding upon all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

[RnMomof7]

OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS NOTED IN THE CATECHISM...This is what catholics have to believe as we've been told time and time again.

337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day.204 On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation,205 permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Compared to this posting at catholic.com Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence
In other words....THEIR OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE!!!!!!!!

Ealgone..do not confuse them with facts....

The truth is the catechism is not an infallible document and is subject to change or "reinterpretation "

Every sermon they hear is just the personal interpretation of the priest.. every RC book they read , every apologist they read, is all nothing more than personal opinion

[RnMomof7]

It’s from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. This is the truth.

A fallible source with a Roman agenda ...hardly an unbiased source

[avenir]

Reading or listening (highly recommended) to Scripture YOURSELF, day after day, will help you understand what it MEANS.

This assumes you are a believer in Jesus Christ and have been given the Holy Spirit and have your ear inclined to Him. He reveals Himself to babes, no scholarship required (though not bad in itself, scholarship puffs up many).

If the above is true of you, you can be shown what correct interpretations are by the Lord. Yes, he uses other believers in our lives, but the idea that you cannot seek God YOURSELF and get real truth from Him is plainly false.

Seeking Him in truth should have alarm bells going off in your spirit when someone claims to be channeling a message from Christ’s earthly mother. Knowing His word will enable you to see clearly the Serpent behind the coy channeled messages, too.

So stop criticizing “Protestants” for seeking to know Him through Scripture and try it out for yourself. If you find in HIS word a blazing expose of the falsehood of your church’s teachings then have the integrity before God to challenge and refuse any such teachings.

[kinsman redeemer]

You have Scripture and hundreds of millions of protestants each with their own separate but equal personal interpretations of what that scripture means, each acting like their own little gods who know better than anyone what scripture means.

2 Tim 2:15 seems like a good place to get resolution to this problem - if it exists. Right division is the key. You have to WANT to understand the entirety of the Word. Picking and choosing what to hang onto and ignoring the other part of "All" brings on heresy.

2 Tim 3:16 is also a benefit to learn the purpose of studying and knowing God's Word. There's a list worth memorizing!

Isn't God's Word AMAZING?? It has everything you need - Right There!

[CynicalBear]

The RCC has given them no alternative but to interpret for themselves.

[RnMomof7]

The RCC has given them no alternative but to interpret for themselves.

And yet has the nerve to claim only "the church" can do it...so the sheeple think they are hearing truth when their priest does a homily..when it is nothing more than the opinion of a man

[Elsie]

I know exactly what you mean!