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.

[LurkingSince'98]

It is amazing on how short your memory is.

That was posited by you last week and about a month ago.

Catholics post hard copy with links to sources and you think that is

Catholics at odds with their Church??

Oh boy are you mistaken.

Please provide examples of where a Catholic freeper is interpreting their faith differently than the Cathechism or Magisterium.

Please use exact quotes of both the belief of our Catholic faith and the ‘interpretation’ at variance.

AMDG

[ealgeone]

>>**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?

Because we have posters offering the following as an example, which nullifies your use of the word always. I know we're not supposed to refer to other threads but you force me to do so to offer evidence of my statement. I omitted the nature of the topic as it is not pertinent to this conversation.

>>>>Similarly, I gave you my opinion; but mine was better founded.<<<<<

You yourself post articles that are written by catholics expressing their interpretation of scripture. Msgr Pope comes to mind.

And I know you cannot tell me that each and every priest, each and every Sunday School(?) teacher, nun, monk, bishop, on each Sunday, or whenever else catholics meet, are saying exactly the same thing, word for word, on a script from the Vatican.

If that's not the case then they are all making their own interpretation of Scripture.

So the catholic needs to get off their high horse about Christians making their own interpretation of Scripture.

[NKP_Vet]

“All the evils in the world are due to lukewarm Catholics”

Pope Pius V

[ealgeone]

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.

You have no idea what I'm thinking.

Unless you're attempting to mind read......

[ealgeone]

I think it's already been done. Doesn't hurt my feelings at all.

If catholics can't take a little heat then maybe they need to stay out of the kitchen.

[NKP_Vet]

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. They do this instead of being happy and content in their new faith. If someone is happy they are not on a never-ending journey to prove their old faith wrong. Makes no sense whatsoever.

[LurkingSince'98]

you made an accusation about Catholics back it up with some quotes.

I don’t think you can but I’d lie to see you try.

talk is cheap.

AMDG

[NKP_Vet]

“All the evil in the world is due to lukewarm Catholics”.

Pope Pius V

[ealgeone]

#63

[HossB86]

Please provide examples of where a Catholic freeper is interpreting their faith differently than the Cathechism or Magisterium.

Where do Catholics stand with CCC 841 that indicates that Catholics and Muslims worship the same 'merciful God.'? Is the Catholic Catechism stating that Muslims worship Yahweh -- the Trinity? Because Muslims don't. They vehemently state that they don't. Yet the CCC says they do.

What about CCC 969 which states that Mary is a 'mediatrix' when scripture states unequivocally that there is ONE mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ? Which is true? God-breathed scripture (God), or the Magisterium (man)? Where do Catholics stand there?

If Catholics DISAGREE with the CCC, then they are in disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church/Cult, right? But if the AGREE, it appears that they are in disagreement with God's own word.

Seems like a quandary to me.

Hoss

[ealgeone]

And until the catholic church decides to post the list of verses it has reviewed and given its interpretation own....then catholics have no room to talk.

[metmom]

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

And the CCC, AND *sacred tradition*, AND whatever writings of the early church father's suits them AND whatever pronouncements popes make or have ever made, whether it's ex cathedra or not, AND......

[metmom]

And I’ll have it.

[LurkingSince'98]

you don’t like Catholic annullment - lets see if you can understand:

Unenforceable Contracts
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html

Since a contract is a legally binding agreement, in the typical scenario, once you enter into a contract with another person or business, you and the other party are both expected to fulfill the terms of the contract. But it’s possible for an otherwise valid contract to be found unenforceable in the eyes of the law, and this article looks at some common situations where that might be the case.

Lack of Capacity

It’s expected that both (or all) parties to a contract have the ability to understand exactly what it is they are agreeing to. If it appears that one side did not have this reasoning capacity, the contract may be held unenforceable against that person. The issue of capacity to contract usually comes up when one side of the agreement is too young or does not have the mental wherewithal to completely understand the agreement and its implications. The general idea here is to prevent an unscrupulous person from taking advantage of someone who lacks the ability to make a reasoned decision. To learn more, check out Nolo’s article Who Lacks the Capacity to Contract?

Duress

duress, or coercion, will invalidate a contract when someone was threatened into making the agreement. In an often cited case involving duress, a shipper (Company A) agreed to transport a certain amount of Company B’s materials, which would be used in a major development project. After Company B’s project was underway and Company A’s ship was en route with the materials, Company A refused to complete the trip unless Company B agreed to pay a higher price. Company B was forced to pay the jacked-up rate because there was no other way to get the material, and not completing the job would lead to unsustainable losses. The court ultimately found that this agreement to raise the price was not enforceable, because it came about through duress. Another common example of duress is blackmail.

Undue Influence

If Person B forced Person A to enter into an agreement by taking advantage of a special or particularly persuasive relationship that Person B had with Person A, the resulting contract might be found unenforceable on grounds of undue influence. In general, to prove undue influence, Person A would have to show that Person B used excessive pressure against Person A during the bargaining process, and that for whatever reason Person A was overly susceptible to the pressure tactics — or that Person B exploited a confidential relationship to exert pressure on Person A.

Misrepresentation

If fraud or misrepresentation occurred during the negotiation process, any resulting contract will probably be held unenforceable. The idea here is to encourage honest, good faith bargaining and transactions. Misrepresentations commonly occur when a party says something false (telling a potential buyer that a house is termite-free when it is not) or, in some other way, conceals or misrepresents a state of affairs (concealing evidence of structural damage in a house’s foundation with paint or a particular placement of furniture).

Nondisclosure

Nondisclosure is essentially misrepresentation through silence — when someone neglects to disclose an important fact about the deal. Courts look at various issues to decide whether a party had a duty to disclose the information, but courts will also consider whether the other party could or should have easily been able to access the same information. It should be noted that parties have a duty to disclose only material facts. But if Party A specifically asks Party B about a fact (material or non-material), then Party B has a duty to disclose the truth.

When contract disputes involve fraudulent dealings like misrepresentation or nondisclosure, and one side of the agreement has already suffered financial losses as a result, a lawsuit for breach of contract might be filed over the matter. Learn more in Nolo’s article Breach of Contract: Material Breach.

...virtually ever single item above will invalidate any Contract.

Since marriage is a contract it is invalid by way of the very same logic.

BTW the above did not consider non-consumation of the marriage sexual union which will also invalidate a Catholic marriage.

your opinion of whether a “valid” marriage can be annulled is just another example of your wrongful protestant interpretation ‘divinely inspired’, I’m sure, of the Catholic faith.

you are wrong again - as usual.

AMDG

[ealgeone]

I'm sure we'd have disagreement among catholics on this one as well:

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

OR maybe this....

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis

or this....

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."206

[metmom]

It’s not a matter of like or not like.

It’s a matter of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Catholic church which condemns divorce and yet repackages it and relabels it and offers it to it’s parishioners as a guilt free way to get out of a marriage you don’t want to be in any more.

All for enough money, mind you.

[editor-surveyor]

Like everything else catholic, its all talk.

Their chain has so many holes in it, it could be used as a colander.

[LurkingSince'98]

you will not find Catholics who are contrary to those parts Catechism.

So how is that Catholics individually personally interpreting at VARIANCE WITH THE CHURCH?

we don’t care - nor does the Church care.

Infinitely different from each protestant personally interpreting Scripture differently!

time to watch Blue Bloods with my wife - nite all.

AMDG