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.

[HossB86]

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.

Did the participants say, "I do"?

Was there a certificate?

Marriage.

I have a friend who, in order to marry a divorced Catholic woman (who had the Cult "annul" her marriage (consummated, by the way, with the result being the issue of children... kinda hard to ignore that...), had his marriage "annulled" (which also was consummated and resulted in the issue of a child) -- so BOTH were divorced, consummated their marriages, were married for YEARS, had kids who in college now...and in order for their second marriages to be "valid in the eyes of the Church" had the church go through the sham of annulment.

Neither was incapacitated, or in any other way members of the list you provided that supposedly qualifies for annulment.

Annulment is a FARCE. No such thing when you have consenting adults.

Hoss

[Oztrich Boy]

“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”

[editor-surveyor]

What confusion!

Yeshua declared Torah to be his Father’s way as long as Earth and the heavens exist, until all the appointed times are fulfilled.

Anyone that claims to follow “Jesus” and doesn’t follow his Torah is fooling himself.
.

[LurkingSince'98]

how is annulment hypocritical?

obviously you didn’t read what I posted much less understand it.

annulment has nothing to do with the Catholic Church...

and everything to do with the folks who get annulled.

usually one of the partners is a whack job AND meets the requirements of an Unenforceable Contract - if the shoe fits.

You may want to have a lawyer explain it to you, however I don’t think any explanation will ever be good enough for you.

AMDG

[LurkingSince'98]

maybe the difference will be you actually read and understand this post

ou 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

[metmom]

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.

And just where in Divinely inspired Scripture to we find *annulment* that can end up being *misinterpreted*?

[metmom]

annulment = Church sanctioned divorce.

A divorce by any other name is still a divorce.

It’s hypocrisy because the RCC condemns divorce and offers its own version for enough money.

[metmom]

Is there something about *What God has put together let no man put asunder* that escapes Catholics?

Or does it depend on redefining what each word of that phrase REALLY means, not what is says?

[ealgeone]

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

You propose to speak for all catholics around the world??

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."206

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!!!!!!!!!

, 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

So right there using catholic documents and forums we totally disprove your point...though I doubt you'll understand it. Now, go get a cup of coffee.

[ronnietherocket3]

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.

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.

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?

I think the first step in answering this question is to determine what is the authentic branch of Judaism and from there to work forward into Christianity.

One side seeks an Absolutely Authentic Bible, the other an Absolutely Authentic Oral Tradition. Close but no cigar. One side seeks an authentic Bible, the other side seeks an authentic Bible and authentic Oral Tradition.

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!

While I agree the Oral Torah was given to Moses at Mt. Sinai and was preserved, most Christians either do not know or disagree. However, at the time of J*sus, the Jews were split into Hellenists, Zealots, Essenes, Sadduccess, and Pharisees (possibly more). This does not include the Samaritans which in turn claimed Sola Scriptura and stated that the other groups were not the true Jews. Since then, Karaites, Reform, and Conservative Jews have been added as well as [not]Jews for Jesus and a myriad of other insignificant denominations.

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.

Unfortunately, the Jewish equivalent of Apostolic Succession died out and modern rabbis are not true rabbis.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues, do not make it personal.

[HossB86]

See post 81.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Hoss

[ealgeone]

How much did they have to pay for the “annulment”?

[HossB86]

Interestingly, he didn’t say... but there was a definite hint.

Hoss

[Iscool]

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.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about...

[HossB86]

That’ll leave a mark.

:D

Hoss

[Iscool]

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

HaHaHaHaHa...So is MAD magizine...HaHaHaHaHa...

[Iscool]

So wen we call protestants cultists it wont be a problem!

Thanks

Never has in the past...The difference is we laugh at it because we know it's not true...Somebody must have hit a nerve when your religion was called a cult...

[Salvation]

You are right. I should have used the word “always.”