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.

[goodwithagun]

That’s good to know. As long as we specify a sect of Protestantism and label it a cult, it is not directed at any individual and is therefore within the rules. I think I’ll screenshot that post.

[metmom]

That’s a direct quote out of your own CCC.

Are you saying that it doesn’t mean what it says? It means what someone says it means?

Let me guess.....

I *interpreted* it wrong.

[LurkingSince'98]

You particular cult of fallen away catholics demonstrates via their anything goes ‘divinely inspired’ personal reinterpretation of Catholic beliefs.

AMDG

[Religion Moderator]

“It was directed at every single individual Catholic FReeper. Disturbing indeed.”

It was not as was explained to you already.

Keep with the issues, stop picking at the scab or you will be asked to leave the thread.

[RnMomof7]

When two diametrically opposed interpretations of Scripture are claimed only one can be True and that is from the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Not really...Rome has only infallibly interpreted a handful of scripture..the rest is up for grabs , and freely interpreted by parish priests, bishops, theologians and apologists ...just as fallible as any protestant..

See Lurking.. Catholics are fallible and may be wrong about how "infallible" Rome is ...

[metmom]

Call a divorce an “annulment” and nobody is guilty of sin.

Ain’t it great to be able to technically not violate the rules while still violating the intent of them?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Unfortunately, Rome is just one of at least four different claims of an unbroken succession "all the way back." But Protestants benignly ignore all the others because tempers weren't worked up against them during the reformation.

In addition to the Catholic Church (Roman and Uniate) there are also the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Non-Chalcaedonian Churches (Miaphysites or "Oriental Orthodox"), and the Non-Ephesenes or Nestorians. All of these traditions claim to be the authentic original "apostolic" church from which the others all broke off. And each one claims the others are the ones who went wrong. Yet each one can "prove" it is the true one--by its own internal criteria. But that's the problem: anything is write by its own internal criteria!

Each of these four basic groups further shatter into other groups. Catholics have the mainstream, the traditionalists, the sedevacantists, and the conclavists. And this doesn't even include the various "Old Catholic" groupings. The mainstream Eastern Orthodox churches are decried as heretics by traditionalist, old calendar, and anti-ecumenical groups. The Miaphysites theoretically possess the same "faith" but include the peculiar, insular, and syncretistic Ethiopian and Eritrean churches as well as two Armenian catholicosates (granted, in communion with each other) and two quarreling churches in India. And the Nestorians have broken into "old calendar" and "new calendar" factions as well.

Now keep in mind that each and every one of the above has a legitimate claim to going "all the way back." How in the name of all that is reasonable does one sift through all this and find "the real thing" when the only means to do so is to accept the internal criteria of the church decided upon? However, at least unlike the versions of chrstianity that have been "restored" by "reading the bible," their number isn't infinite.

Further, while Catholics and Protestants like to pretend it is all about them ("you have to pick one of us; which one will it be?") this is not the truth at all. Of the above ancient churches, the Armenian, Ethiopian, Assyrian, and multiple Indian churches simply could not have been created by Constantine. The Armenian Church became established in Armenia while chrstianity was still illegal in the Roman Empire, yet the Armenian Church has priests, confession, prayers to the virgin and saints, and "the holy sacrifice." If all this was started by Constantine, why were they doing it outside Rome before Constantine was ever emperor to begin with?

The Ethiopian and Indian churches also were totally isolated from Rome for centuries (though there was a brief Catholic period in Ethiopia after the Jesuits came along), yet they also have all this stuff that "Constantine invented." In fact, the "St. Thomas churches" of India existed in blissful isolation from Europe until about 1599, yet when they were discovered they too had all that stuff that Constantine had allegedly invented in 313.

Of all the ancient churches, perhaps the one that comes closest to the Protestant myth of First Baptist Church, Jerusalem is the Nestorian Church, which existed outside Rome and Byzantium in the Persian Empire. Like Protestants they reject images, and they are the only one of all the ancient churches who historically refuse to call Mary the "mother of gxd" (though they still regard her as a saint and pray to her), but aside from these they too have the priests, the sacraments, the "holy sacrifice," etc. In other words, the "original Protestant church before Constantine" is a myth that persists only because there are people who need to believe in it.

I am no apologist for the ancient churches, and those of you who have followed my posts over the years know that I have been their harshest critic and have defended Protestants, especially Fundamentalist Protestants, many times. But that wasn't because I thought Protestant assumptions were correct.

One side seeks an Absolutely Authentic Bible, the other an Absolutely Authentic Oral Tradition. Neither can be found in chrstianity, Protestant or "apostolic." There is no agreement on which "ancient" church is the one the others split off of and certainly no agreement on which "restoration" has been the correct one (or even if it has been discovered yet). Yet everyone agrees absolutely that at one time Judaism was the One True Religion, that its Bible was undoubtedly true and that its Oral Tradition from Sinai was undoubtedly true. The problem is that people insist its place was taken by something else--and people have been fighting for two millenia about just what that "something else" is!

I have tried to resist making this appeal, but we live in apocalyptic times. It is time to stop running in circles trying to find what never existed. G-d spoke at Sinai. Neither a bible nor the authorization of J*sus was ever necessary to know that this is true. The Jews got their religion from G-d Himself while everyone else has gotten their "gxd" from their religion. All legitimate longings are answered in Judaism--the desire for an unquestionable Book, an unquestionable Tradition and an unquestionable Authority as well as the simultaneous but apparently contradictory desires for universal and particular Truth, for the destruction of ancient myths and the validation of Ancient, Unchanging Truth.

Please, dear people--if you have never done it before, or even if you have, please consider the claims of Judaism/Noachism. Because we have entered the final stage of history. Things will never go back to the way they were before because that way permitted the existence of false religions and false "gxds." The only thing awaiting us, the only thing that can save us now, is Absolute Truth--not family or national tradition.

Please think about it.

[LurkingSince'98]

Your reinterpretation is definitely opposed to the Magisterium.

Im sure God is pleased with how you misinterpret Catholicism.

AMSG

[metmom]

I don’t belong to a cult of fallen away Catholics.

There may be some former Catholics in the church where I worship, but I don’t go around asking everyone what their religious background is.

It’s irrelevant if they are trusting in Christ alone for salvation.

[goodwithagun]

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

[metmom]

Perhaps if Catholics were more concise and careful about how they worded things, there would be less trouble with *misinterpretations*.

But clarity in writing is not a strong suit within Catholicism.

[Religion Moderator]

Accusing another member of a lie is attributing motive, which is against the guidelines.

Leave the thread and review the Religion Forum guidelines.

[metmom]

Just saw your instruction to to poster to leave the thread.

I know that posting to someone under those circumstances is discouraged.

Sorry about that.

[ealgeone]

I have never met any Catholic who concerns themselves one jot about the authority or in your case the lack of historic authority of the protestants prior to the 1500s.

Maybe someone needs to look in the mirror!

[ealgeone]

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.

And yet...day in and day out we have catholics posting their own personal interpretations of Scripture right here on FR.

[jobim]

Yes, agreed, you do try as hard as you can to define the Catholic Church as the great enduring lie. I get that, and in fact I illustrated that by that list of just 2 months' worth of postings.

But my question is: why? Why are you using FR as your Maginot Line to attack Catholicism? Why are you obsessive in your attack? Because FR is a place where Conservatives join in discussion, what compels you to unleash your vitriol on those whom you otherwise might share a common outlook on the state of our Republic?

[Salvation]

**And yet...day in and day out we have catholics posting their own personal interpretations of Scripture right here on FR. **

Why do you say that when Catholic articles are always linked?

[LurkingSince'98]

It is laughable that a protestant can’t tell the difference between a faithful Catholic defending his faith from protestant calumny and someone who spends time thinking about what you think.

Your lack of discernment ia amazing.

AMDG

[impimp]

Both are rocks. But it is clear that Peter is a rock and more, importantly, that he had the power to bind and loose.