[OLD REGGIE]

The problem is a confusion of tactile apostolic succession with the succession of the papacy. If the apostolic succession is broken we have an ecclesiological problem.

Please see #5523. The "old" guy said "In fact, I don't believe this is "official" teaching of the Catholic Church. I think the claim rests solely on the line of Bishops."

Yet there has been at least one "expert" who seems to claim otherwise. Even to the extent of inventing a "no time" theory.

[Mad Dawg]

Well, I don't get what fallacious (as opposed to just 'false') about the “unbroken line” . I don't know what the proposition is and I don't know what the arguments are, and I don't see what it has to do with anything.

Who exactly is claiming an “unbroken line”, and what does the claim mean?

The discussion smells to me of rope-a-dope.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Yet there has been at least one “expert” who seems to claim otherwise.”

Incorrect. I never claimed otherwise even once. You are claiming there is no apostolic succession, no papal succession. I have said there are both. You claim that there is no papal succession because of interregnums. I have said, repeatedly, that time gaps between papal reigns is not an issue because the office of pope exists as long as the Church does.

“Even to the extent of inventing a “no time” theory.”

I invented no such theory, but you have tried desperately to invent it and claim it is mine. As of yet you have not been able to make anything even appraoching a logical argument on this. You have not demonstrated how an interregnum somehow makes papal succession go away when the Church remains very much alive throughout the interregnum. You have no managed to explain how an interregnum supposedly does anything at all to an office that exists if there’s someone in it or not.