Apostolic Succession

I understand the concept of Apostolic Succession and we know of those from Peter but do we have any successive list from any of the other apostles?



Although in a way you could apply apostolic succession with the papacy, I don’t think it’s the exact same thing. Apostolic succession is with the living continuation of the authority of the apostles through the bishops most commonly associated with the laying on if the hands. The papacy however is an office that can be filled by any valid bishop, one that doesn’t necessarily have direct apostolic lineage with St. Peter.

And I don’t think we do have any listings of direct succession of the other apostles at least to my knowledge (besides Timothy etc. In scripture).

The only ones I am familiar with are with the various major Patriarchates. For example, the Church of Antioch (and that only from a canonical Orthodox perspective, since the Oriental and Catholic churches there are not considered apostolic).

Maybe I don’t understand as well as I thought I did. Is it the bishops of the church who have the laying on of the hands to pass on the apostolic succession?

Constantinople’s lineage is traced through Andrew, Jerusalem from James.

The chuch in India is traced through Tomas.

Pablo, is there a place I can read about these? Very interested in how the other lines went!

Indeed. Also, Antioch and Alexandria are both traced through St. Peter as well.

For informations sake, Pope Leo VIII stated that both the “form” and “intent” need to be known or there is no valid succession. He actually stated this infallibly. There are no church records I know of which list both these. In the early church it was really “some bishops accepted them as a bishop”. Not sure how to correlate those 2 aspects, but I thought I’d throw it out there.

My personal belief, and demonstrated by the early and middle age churches prior to accurate record keeping, is that absolute knowledge of exact form and intent are not as important as listed by Leo VIII. If your are RC I would suggest upholding the infallibility and then researching it yourself.

Interesting Question.

It was Leo XIII. It was not stated ex cathedra, but it is certainly de fide. And that occasion referenced the subject of Anglican orders, stressing those two aspects of a sacrament (form and intent) because, in the logic of Apostolicae curae, they were deficient, resulting in a failure to transmit valid orders, in Anglicanism, at a specific point in time, thus breaking the apostolic succession of Anglican orders.

Generally, as would apply to this thread, valid form, intent, minister, matter, and subject are all required to validly confect any sacrament, including orders.



DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.