Is there an data source for Apostolic Succession?


#1

I ask that question based upon 2 things:

  1. I’ve been wondering myself, and thinking it would be quite beneficial to the Catholic faith if Apostolic “links” could be proven. Obviously, the Papal lineage appears intact, but I’m talking about the Bishops themselves. On the other hand, it would be quite detrimental if such succession were unable to prove.

  2. This lecture/talk given by Card. Walter Kasper, whom P. John Paul II appointed the President of the Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity in the RCC. He said as he spoke at an Anglican / Roman Catholic meeting, May 24, 2003:

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][size=2][font=Arial][size=2] How can we overcome this problem? As I see the problem and its possible solution, it is not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles; this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which by the way historically could hardly be proved and ascertained[/size]. The Catholic view is different from such an individualistic and mechanical approach. Its starting point is the collegium of the apostles as a whole;

This is from thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi?tablet-00742

Feel free to read the broader context at the link. That quote is about 2/3 down. He’s discussing different ways that apostolic succession can be understood, and how it may be understood in the future as more is considered, such as a common communion in the Christian faith as means of apostolic succession.

So, here, a Cardinal seems to be saying that historic apostolic succession could “hardly be proved and ascertained.”

Like I sometimes do, I will post a follow up comment, but really what I’m wondering is there in the question I ask in the title.

I seem to remember using a particular website that has many bishops and their lineage traced back as far as is possible. Can’t find it now though.
[/font][/size][/font]


#2

This is interesting:

He (Card. Joseph Ratzinger) has also sparred openly in articles with fellow German Cardinal Walter Kasper, a moderate who has urged less centralized church governance and is considered a dark horse papal candidate.

That’s from this enchanting AP biography on P. Benedict XVI

Apparently the current Pope and Card. Kasper don’t see eye to eye on all things, perhaps including their ideas of apos. succ.

I’m expecting that my question can be answered in the affirmative. After all, it’s quite dishonest to assert something (ie. Apostolic Succession) that can’t be proven as a fact.


#3

[quote=Reformed Rob]I seem to remember using a particular website that has many bishops and their lineage traced back as far as is possible. Can’t find it now though.
[/quote]

Was it Catholic-Hierarchy.org?

tee


#4

[quote=tee_eff_em]Was it Catholic-Hierarchy.org?

tee
[/quote]

Yes, as a matter of fact I believe that was the site. Thanks!!

However, as I was looking around, I quickly noticed something quite astonishing. I looked at the following Dioceses in USA, and their current Bishops:

Memphis, TN (my diocese first, naturally)
Grand Rapids, MI
St. Augustine, FL
Albany, NY
Kansas City - St. Joseph, MO
St. Thomas, WA

And on every single one of them, I’m serious, every single one, the lineage went back to one single man, in the 16th century, named “Scipione Cardinal Rebiba.” So, he was a Cardinal, and there is no date given for him, but you can tell by the others that it’s in the early to mid 16th century. You can tell from his information page that he was a Bishop somewheres in Italy.

Now, I’ve no reason to doubt any of the information on the site, I’m sure it’s at least mostly true, even though it’s “not officially sanctioned or approved by any Church authority” (that’s their own statement.) Anyways, they acknowledge that it’s open to revision, and has been revised in the past.

I clicked on some in Africa, got the same Scipione Rebiba.

I clicked on some in Germany, got the same man, Scipione Rebiba.

It seems like sooooo many Bishops today, according to that site’s information, go back to Scipione Rebiba.

Anyone have any information on “why that is?”???

Also, where could we find Card. Scipione’s previous lineage?

You could email the webmaster I suppose, that’s fair game.


#5

90% of bishops are in Scipione Cardinal Rebiba’s line. He consecrated a lot of bishops, and many of those bishops ended up consecrating a lot of bishops, and then several of his apastolic descendants in a row were elected pope and those particular popes reigned in a time that had many sees to be filled and so consecrated a great many bishops and so on.


#6

Read Acts chapter 1 verses 15-26. The first case of apostolic succession. Judas’ office was still valid and needed to be filled. And so the Apostles got together and through prayer and casting of lots, they found a successor for Judas.


#7

[quote=Reformed Rob]However, as I was looking around, I quickly noticed something quite astonishing. I looked at the following Dioceses in USA, and their current Bishops:

And on every single one of them, I’m serious, every single one, the lineage went back to one single man, in the 16th century, named “Scipione Cardinal Rebiba.” So, he was a Cardinal, and there is no date given for him, but you can tell by the others that it’s in the early to mid 16th century.

I clicked on some in Africa, got the same Scipione Rebiba.

I clicked on some in Germany, got the same man, Scipione Rebiba.

It seems like sooooo many Bishops today, according to that site’s information, go back to Scipione Rebiba.

Anyone have any information on "why that is?

Also, where could we find Card. Scipione’s previous lineage?

[/quote]

Rob,

You need to consider two terms Apostolic Succession” and “episcopal lineage” which, though related, are not interchangeable.

Apostolic Succession, as it applies to the Papal claim (from the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 ed.):

…“To succeed” is to be the successor of, especially to be the heir of, or to occupy an official position just after, … Now the Roman Pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position, and perform the functions of St. Peter; they are, therefore, his successors. (This is proven by the fact) that St. Peter came to Rome, and ended there his pontificate; (and) that the Bishops of Rome who came after him held his official position in the Church.

The same points of proof apply to apostolic succession in any subordinate See.

Episcopal Lineage effectively means that every valid, Catholic bishop living today was consecrated by the “laying on of hands” by another bishop who was consecrated by a previous bishop, and so on, back to the Apostles without interruption of continuity.

The existence of a list of Popes, from Peter through John Paul II, establishes Apostolic Succession in the Papacy. The list establishes that the Chair of Peter has been successively occupied since Peter’s repose. That fact supports an arguable presumption for episcopal lineage, i.e., that each Pope was, during his tenure, in possession of valid episcopal orders, conferred on him by another bishop, who was himself in possession of valid episcopal orders, and so on, back to Saint Linus, Peter’s immediate successor. If Popes personally consecrated their successors, Apostolic Succession and episcopal lineage would be coincident but, as we know, that’s not what is done.

That said, it is virtually impossible to document the names of all bishops in an episcopal lineage back to one of the twelve Apostles because record-keeping at that level of detail is either not extant or does not consistently exist historically. It is highly likely, however, that episcopal lineage can be traced to Scipione Cardinal Rebiba, Bishop of Sabina, of blessed memory, who was born in 1504, elected bishop 16 March 1541, and reposed on 23 July 1577.

That isn’t all that remarkable; the episcopal lineage of more than 90% of the 4,300+ Latin bishops alive in 1998 was ultimately traceable to Scipione Rebiba. It isn’t that Cardinal Rebiba was so prolific as a consecrator, but that among the episcopal descendents of his consecration was Pope Benedict XIII (to whom Rebiba would have been the 6-times great grand-bishop, to further the analogy of episcopal descent). During his episcopacy and pontificate, Pope Benedict XIII was the principal consecrator of 139 bishops, many of whom were ordinaries of important dioceses and, in turn, ordained many bishops themselves.

Since the early 20th century, investigation into and cataloguing of episcopal lineages has been ongoing, conducted by a small number of researchers, primarily laypersons, most of them doing it on their own time. They have documented the lineages of thousands of bishops, stretching back through several centuries; related endeavors have focused on the history of canonical jurisdictions.

The results of much of this research are viewable on the web.

(continued)


#8

A friend, Charles Bransom, is the principal quasi-official recorder of episcopal lineages, work in which he’s been involved for 4 decades, contining the efforts begun in the 1930s by Father Albert Perbal, OMI, and Abbot Gabriel Tissot, OSB, and continued in the 1950s and 1960s by Fathers Andre Chapeau, OSB, Isidore Perraud, CSSp, and Fernand Combaluzier, CM, Msgr. Lamberto de Echeverria, and Mons. Jean Montier.

Charles’ work documenting American episcopal lineages from 1790-1989 was published by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (a follow-up, to bring the work up-to-date, is now in process). Annually, he issues Revue des Ordinations Episcopales, a monograph that, for the past 15 years, has documented the details of every Catholic episcopal ordination throughout the world, including the date, place, and names of the consecrator and principal co-consecrators, biographical data related to each new hierarch, and an abbreviated episcopal lineage for each. Those in the Boston area may have seen the lineage of Archbishop Sean O’Malley, OFM, prepared by Charles, that was printed in the Pilot, newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston. See his documentation of the late Pope John Paul’s episcopal lineage at:

Episcopal Lineage of HH John Paul II

For a discussion by Charles about The Rebiban Succession, see Episcopal Lineages & Apostolic Succession.

David Cheney (who posts here as davidc2), another American Catholic layman, maintains an on-line database that documents current and historical information about both hierarchs and canonical jurisdictions. His is one of the most thoroughly documented sites on the web and one of about a half-dozen that, together, constitute an enormously valuable compendium of data on Catholic hierarchs and jurisdictions. It’s an ongoing work, with historical material being continually updated to incorporate newly available data, and information added whenever new hierarchs are named or changes made in any jurisdiction. David offers a free e-mail notification service to keep subscribers immediately abreast of changes. That’s the site that you discussed above, at:

Catholic Hierarchy

von Martin Wolters, a German Catholic layman, documents Catholic ecclesiastical jurisdictions and their ordinaries worldwide, as well as the Vatican diplomatic corps and officials of the Vatican dicasteries and other Curial entities. Both jurisdictional and personnel changes are recorded for all events occurring in or after 1917. The site, continuously being expanded, is available in both German and English at:

Die Apostolische Nachfolge (The Apostolic Sucession)

Professor Salvador Miranda, a Cuban-American Catholic layman, has devoted 50 years to collecting data on the cardinalate; the results of which are a very comprehensive and ever-growing on-line database that offers extraordinary detail about those on whom the red hat has been conferred:

Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church

Three Norwegian Catholics, Father Claes Tande, Mr. Chris Nyborg, Notary of the Oslo Diocesan Tribunal, and Father Claes’ brother (whose name escapes me at the moment) operate a web-based database that seeks to document the chronological history of all Catholic canonical jurisdictions. Their site, offered in 6 languages, including English, is under continuous expansion. It is at:

Chronology of Erections of Catholic Dioceses Worldwide

Bob Hilkens, a Belgian Catholic layman, created and maintains a large on-line database in English on the history and administrative structures of the nations of the world. Originally limited to secular states, he expanded it some years ago to include the canonical structure of the Catholic Church. His site is at:

States and Regents of the World

Bruce Gordon has expanded a site that initially focused solely on royal houses to include a significant amount of data on ecclesiastical lineages, particularly as they relate to patriarchates. The site is at:

Regnal Chronologies

One should add to those a site maintained by Terry Boyle, an American Catholic layman, which explains the apostolic succession and episcopal lineage of bishops who claim validity through consecration by renegade Catholic and Orthodox hierarchs, as it is really a part of the entire picture, albeit seen through a distorted lensfinder. It’s at:

Outline of Episcopi Vagante

(continued)


#9

The coordinated efforts of these people, who regularly exchange information among themselves, has resulted in extraordinary detail being available as to the canonical structure of the Church and its hierarchs.

Although there is overlap in several instances, each of the sites offers either some particulars in the data that it presents, or in the way in which it does so, that makes it an important piece of the whole historical understanding.

Hope this info helps. If I can answer anything else on the subject, let me know (pm me if you post and I don’t reply in a day or so; I don’t usually read in this particular forum and just stumbled on this thread by chance).

Many years,

Neil


#10

[quote=Reformed Rob]I ask that question based upon 2 things:

  1. I’ve been wondering myself, and thinking it would be quite beneficial to the Catholic faith if Apostolic “links” could be proven. Obviously, the Papal lineage appears intact, but I’m talking about the Bishops themselves. On the other hand, it would be quite detrimental if such succession were unable to prove.

  2. This lecture/talk given by Card. Walter Kasper, whom P. John Paul II appointed the President of the Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity in the RCC. He said as he spoke at an Anglican / Roman Catholic meeting, May 24, 2003:

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][size=2][font=Arial][size=2]How can we overcome this problem? As I see the problem and its possible solution, it is not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles; this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which by the way historically could hardly be proved and ascertained[/size][/size]. The Catholic view is different from such an individualistic and mechanical approach. Its starting point is the collegium of the apostles as a whole;

This is from thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi?tablet-00742

Feel free to read the broader context at the link. That quote is about 2/3 down. He’s discussing different ways that apostolic succession can be understood, and how it may be understood in the future as more is considered, such as a common communion in the Christian faith as means of apostolic succession.

So, here, a Cardinal seems to be saying that historic apostolic succession could “hardly be proved and ascertained.”

Like I sometimes do, I will post a follow up comment, but really what I’m wondering is there in the question I ask in the title.

I seem to remember using a particular website that has many bishops and their lineage traced back as far as is possible. Can’t find it now though.
[/font][/font]
[/quote]

It becomes very difficult because it is more of a “web” of succession instead of a “line” of succession. Since three Bishops Consecrate a new Bishop and it has been this way for a long time.


#11

however, one is the principle concecrator correct?


#12

Irish Melkite,

Thanks for all that information, yes I did read all 3 of your posts. I just read Bransom’s piece on S. Rebiban.


Everyone -

I also realized that I made a grammar goof in the title, things like that bother me. The “an” should have been “a.” I apologize to all who were offended at such an oversight on my part.

Well, on the topic of Walter Kaspar’s statement, is it fair to say the following:

Even if someone states that episcopal lineage of any one, or even any of the Bishops, cannot be historically traced back to a certain Apostle, that is not necessarily a denial of Apostolic Succession. Rather, it may be a simple acknowledgment of what, up to now, is the case, until further historical documents are found.”

Does that make sense? Some Sees, such as Rome, would perhaps be different, due to the nature of that office. But generally speaking.

That statement by Walter Card. Kasper in my opening post failed to set well with one of my “friends.” He said Kaspar was outright denying apostolic succession. On a side note, I’d like to see my “friend” empirically prove the episcopal lineage of his Bishop back to a certain apostle. I’ll give him 30 years to do it.

Perhaps important to consider is the context of Kaspar’s speech, and that perhaps P. Benedict XVI is at odds with some of his opinions.

Forgive me, Irish Melkite, if I appear to be mixing terms. I see what you are saying and I basically understand.


#13

[quote=Brain]however, one is the principle concecrator correct?
[/quote]

That is correct. However they all intend to Consecrate/Ordain this priest to the level of Bishop. So if the first is not valid for some obscure reason the second would be and if the Second is not valid, then the third would be.


#14

[quote=Reformed Rob]is it fair to say the following:

Even if someone states that episcopal lineage of any one, or even any of the Bishops, cannot be historically traced back to a certain Apostle, that is not necessarily a denial of Apostolic Succession. Rather, it may be a simple acknowledgment of what, up to now, is the case, until further historical documents are found.”

Does that make sense? Some Sees, such as Rome, would perhaps be different, due to the nature of that office. But generally speaking.

That statement by Walter Card. Kasper in my opening post failed to set well with one of my “friends.” He said Kaspar was outright denying apostolic succession.
[/quote]

Rob,

Yes, it does make sense. IMO, the Cardinal in saying “this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which by the way historically could hardly be proved and ascertained” was acknowledging the human aspect involved.

The factors that play negatively into maintaining sustained and ongoing documentation at this level of record-keeping over a span of two millenia are prodigious - illiteracy, fires, persecution, war with its accompanying pillage and destruction, the ephemeral nature of scribed documents, geographic dispersal and isolation. Each of these considerations alone accounts for the absence or destruction of untold thousands of records. Frankly, that the apostolic succession of the most prominent hierarchical lines - those of the papacy and the patriarchates - has survived is remarkable in itself.

Some might argue that in a time when the Church was spread across significantly less of the globe, the numbers of bishops would have been correspondingly less than, for instance, the 4300+ that I cited as alive in 1998, and, therefore, it should have been easier to keep track of their individual episcopal genealogies. In fact, though, it must be remembered that in earliest times, the difficulty of travel being what it was, it was not uncommon that the senior presbyter in each individual church was a bishop; that developed over time into “town” and “country” (rural) bishops and finally to the point where bishops were situated only in the larger population centers. As an example of the numbers of hierarchs that existed in some places during the early centuries, consider that there were more than 100 bishops in the See of Alexandria alone by 320AD. Even as late as the 13th century, the Assyrian Church of the East, geographically and theologically isolated from Catholicism and Orthodoxy, had more than 30 metropolitan sees and over 200 dioceses spread across Persia and into China.

One other thought - in reading His Eminence’s words, he seems to be making a point about tracing Apostolic Succession back to the body of Apostles, what he refers to as the apostolic collegium. I am a bit uncertain as to whether he may have been intending to refute an argument (which I have to admit never having heard) that the validity of apostolic succession rests on initiation of the chain by one Apostle (probably Peter, if that were to indeed be someone’s basis for argumentation), who would have been the one to confer the succession on each of the others.

As I see the problem and its possible solution, it is not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles; this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which by the way historically could hardly be proved and ascertained. The Catholic view is different from such an individualistic and mechanical approach. Its starting point is the collegium of the apostles as a whole; together they received the promise that Jesus Christ will be with them till the end of the world (Matt 28, 20). So after the death of the historical apostles they had to co–opt others who took over some of their apostolic functions. In this sense the whole of the episcopate stands in succession to the whole of the collegium of the apostles.

To stand in the apostolic succession is not a matter of an individual historical chain but of collegial membership in a collegium, which as a whole goes back to the apostles by sharing the same apostolic faith and the same apostolic mission. The laying on of hands is under this aspect a sign of co-optation in a collegium.

In sum, I don’t at all think that he was denying either apostolic succession or episcopal lineage, just acknowledging that, at some point, one may have to substitute belief for tangible evidence in the form of an episcopal genealogy. As someone who can trace my own ancestors, with certitude, through only about 5 generations, I’m fairly impressed with anyone whose episcopal credentials can be documented back to Scipione Cardinal Rebiba.

Many years,

Neil


#15

Frankly, that the apostolic succession of the most prominent hierarchical lines - those of the papacy and the patriarchates - has survived is remarkable in itself.

As an Armenian, let me just say that this assesment is spot on. I won’t go on about the Genocide here, but let me just say that the fact that I know the name of my great-great grandmother is nothing short of a miracle.

When I first heard that the list of Popes going back all the way to Peter had survived and accounted for every pontificate, I was quite frankly more skeptical about that then I was of the Risen Christ. The fact that it is documented and well demonstrated, along with all of the other major Patriarchates, really is astounding. I’m with Irish Melkite when he says that the documentation of the succession of the Papacy gives credence enough to the notion that episcopal lineage really does go all the way back to the Apostles.

Understand that from the earliest non-Scriptural writings, and I’m talking people who would have known some of the Apostles personally, the concept of the Bishop being a principle successor to the Apostles was so firmly rooted that it was actually used to settle quite heated debates. Basically, if you had a Bishop on your side in the argument, and the other side didn’t, you won. Plain and simple, no argument about it. With that in mind we can see that even if physical records weren’t kept (which would have been extremely unwise during certain periods of the Roman Empire) the attitude that Bishop = Truth was essentially an article of faith, and still is to this day in both the Orthodox and the Catholic communions. To give you a comparison, the solid conception of the importance of the Bishopric predates precise articulation of the Trinity by at least two centuries. If you don’t believe me, read the writings of the earliest Church Fathers for yourself; the importance of lineage of bishops was more solid than faith in the divinity of Christ (and was in fact used to settle disputes on that very question, in some cases). Since I don’t have room to cite all the myriad of sources, you can pour over this and these.

In light of that, it’s almost preposterous to state that just because we don’t have meticulous records of every bishop’s lineage means we don’t have a solid, and really unassailable, basis for saying that Apostalic Succession and episcopal lineage are and always have been an absolute rule within the Catholic/Orthodox paradigm. You’d have an easier time definitively demonstrating that Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist than demonstrating that the Christians didn’t believe in, and maintain, episcopal lineage. Keep in mind that this was a period of very little travel, so a bishop would have been ordained in the very area that he presided over. You knew he was a real bishop because you personally knew him, and the guys who ordained him, and possibly the guys who ordained them, and this went on for centuries starting within the lifetime of the Apostles.

When I converted to Catholicism from Atheism, I didn’t have a problem with “finding out the truth” of the Church versus Protestantism. I had read history, and some of the Church Fathers, and the answer was simple: go where the bishops are.

God bless!


#16

[quote=Reformed Rob]2) This lecture/talk given by Card. Walter Kasper, whom P. John Paul II appointed the President of the Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][size=2][font=Arial][size=2][/size][/size][/font][/font]
[/quote]

Cardinal Kasper often seems to be at odds with the teaching of The Church. He’s not the one I would refer to with regard to the Authentic teaching of the Church.


#17

[quote=Reformed Rob]2) This lecture/talk given by Card. Walter Kasper, whom P. John Paul II appointed the President of the Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity in the RCC. He said as he spoke at an Anglican / Roman Catholic meeting, May 24, 2003:

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][size=2][font=Arial][size=2]How can we overcome this problem? As I see the problem and its possible solution, it is not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles; this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which by the way historically could hardly be proved and ascertained[/size][/size]. The Catholic view is different from such an individualistic and mechanical approach. Its starting point is the collegium of the apostles as a whole;

This is from thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi?tablet-00742
[/font][/font]
[/quote]

I would say that canon 4 of Nicea is a good proof. Tertulian said,

“[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity” (*Demurrer Against the Heretics *20 [A.D. 200]).

“[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood” (ibid., 21).

“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (ibid., 32).

“But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory” (ibid.).

“Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith” (ibid.).

These are from the link Ghosty links to, but the link only works on google cache.


#18

scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html


#19

Thanks again, all of you, for the thought, typing, linking, and everything for this thread.

I’ve learned a few things over the past couple days, and this post chronicles one of those things.

Thanks!!


#20

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.