Does valid apostolic succession still exist in Rome?

I think I went way off topic guys...sorry.

RevJohnG said:

Now whether they are canonical or not that is the question; is that pertinent to this discussion, the canonicity of the consecrating bishops?
See what I'm asking?

Click to expand...

The Orthodox wiki said it better than my attempts


"In addition to a line of historic transmission, Orthodox Christian churches additionally require that a hierarch maintain Orthodox doctrine as well as full communion with other Orthodox bishops. As such, the Orthodox do not recognize the existence of apostolic succession outside the Orthodox Church, precisely because the episcopacy is a ministry within the Church."

Honestly I do repect theirs quite a bit more that the pieced together stuff that folks like "bishop" Draperod has.

It doesn't mean that it is valid though.

RobNJ said:

The Orthodox wiki said it better than my attempts


"In addition to a line of historic transmission, Orthodox Christian churches additionally require that a hierarch maintain Orthodox doctrine as well as full communion with other Orthodox bishops. As such, the Orthodox do not recognize the existence of apostolic succession outside the Orthodox Church, precisely because the episcopacy is a ministry within the Church."

Click to expand...

Orthodox wiki has it right. It's important to understand that apostolic succession is in the Church, not the person, and anyone who departs from the Orthodox Church cannot have apostolic succession of any kind. So RevJohnG, it wouldn't matter if your bishops were consecrated by St Peter himself - if Peter had departed the Orthodox Church at the time, he would be no bishop and his consecrations would have had no effect. (He also wouldn't be St Peter, but that's beside the point now!) Besides, your denomination's tracing of apostolic lines reveals a Western Augustinian view of apostolic succession that is completely incompatible with Orthodox apostolic succession.

I would add that if Pope Benedict, for example, repented of heresy tomorrow and sought entry into the Orthodox Church, he would by no means be the "Patriarch of the West" automatically. Those receiving him into the Church might not perform an episcopal consecration, but they would only see him as an Orthodox bishop by oikonomia, by virtue of him repudiating his errors and accepting the apostolic faith, not as a foregone conclusion based on his RC consecration as a bishop and 2005 election as pope. That's a very common and pernicious error - perceiving receptions of people into the church by oikonomia as recognitions of sacramental grace in other religions. Also, as I mentioned, the Western view of apostolic succession is incompatible with the Orthodox teaching of it. A formerly non-Orthodox bishop may be made an Orthodox bishop by being received into the Church, but his apostolic succession derives from the Church which receives him, never from the invalid lineage of heterodox bishops who first performed a rite of consecration over him.

I think that there really are two questions here:

One: Can Rome produce a list of bishops (however defined) that go back to Day One? I'd say likely yes.

Two: Does that matter? Aye, there's the rub.

Tonks said:

I think that there really are two questions here:

One: Can Rome produce a list of bishops (however defined) that go back to Day One? I'd say likely yes.

Two: Does that matter? Aye, there's the rub.

Click to expand...

Historical evidence shows St. Peter was NOT in Rome until shortly before his death, and thus the list of Popes itself is inaccurate. It really does look like St. Linus was the first pope, and NOT St. Peter...

Michael the Iconographer said:

No. Rome lost its valid apotolic succession when it Anathematized the 4 Eastern Patriarchs.

Click to expand...

didn't the Papal legates only anathematize Cerularius? the 4 Eastern Patriarchs weren't excommunicated. Neither was the Pope (by the East) - only the legates.

Is this true???

Pope Leo IX and Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius heightened the conflict by suppressing Greek and Latin in their respective domains. In 1054, Roman legates traveled to Cerularius to deny him the title Ecumenical Patriarch and to insist that he recognize the Church of Rome's claim to be the head and mother of the churches.[2] Cerularius refused. The leader of the Latin contingent, Cardinal Humbert, excommunicated Cerularius, while Cerularius in return excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and other legates.[2]
The Western legates' acts may have been of doubtful validity due to Leo's death, while Cerularius's excommunication applied only to the legates personally.

Click to expand...

MoNiCa4316 said:

didn't the Papal legates only anathematize Cerularius? the 4 Eastern Patriarchs weren't excommunicated. Neither was the Pope (by the East) - only the legates.

Is this true???

Click to expand...

By excommunicating and anathematizing the legate of the Pope, the Pope was excommunicated and anathematized as well. At this point Rome ceased to have valid Apostolic succession.

Michael the Iconographer said:

By excommunicating and anathematizing the legate of the Pope, the Pope was excommunicated and anathematized as well. At this point Rome ceased to have valid Apostolic succession.

Click to expand...

only the legates were anathematized though.. do you have any evidence the Pope was included in the anathema? because I read it was just the legates. (and all the excommunications were lifted a while ago, on both sides)

The Western legates' acts may have been of doubtful validity due to Leo's death, while Cerularius's excommunication applied only to the legates personally.

Click to expand...

What do you think about this? (from Wikipedia)

Mutual excommunication of 1054
Most of the direct causes of the Great Schism, however, are far less grandiose than the famous Filioque. The relations between the papacy and the Byzantine court were good in the years leading up to 1054. The emperor Constantine IX and the Pope Leo IX were allied through the mediation of the Lombard catepan of Italy, Argyrus, who had spent years in Constantinople, originally as a political prisoner.
Patriarch Michael I ordered a letter to be written to the bishop of Trani in which he attacked the "Judaistic" practices of the West, namely the use of unleavened bread. The letter was to be sent by John to all the bishops of the West, including the Pope. John promptly complied and the letter was passed to Humbert of Mourmoutiers, the cardinal-bishop of Silva Candida, who translated the letter into Latin and brought it to the Pope, who ordered a reply to be made to each charge and a defense of papal supremacy to be laid out in a response.
Although he was hot-headed, Michael was convinced to cool the debate and thus attempt to prevent the impending breach. However, Humbert and the Pope made no concessions and Humbert was sent with legatine powers to the imperial capital to resolve the questions raised, once and for all. Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine, and Peter, Archbishop of Amalfi arrived in April 1054 and were met with a hostile reception; they stormed out of the palace, leaving the papal response with Michael, who in turn was even more angered by their actions. The patriarch refused to recognize their authority or, practically, their existence.[46] When Pope Leo died on April 19, 1054, the legates' authority legally ceased, but they effectively ignored this technicality.[47]
In response to Micheal's refusal to address the issues at hand, the legatine mission took the extreme measure of entering the church of the Hagia Sophia during the Divine Liturgy and placing a bull of excommunication on the altar.
The consummation of the East–West Schism is thus generally dated from the year 1054, when this sequence of events took place. However, these events only triggered the beginning of the schism, and it was not actually consummated by the seemingly mutual excommunications. The New Catholic Encyclopedia reports that the legates had been careful not to intimate that the bull of excommunication implied a general excommunication of the Byzantine Church. The bull excommunicated only Caerularius, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents. Thus, the New Catholic Encyclopedia argues that the dispute need not have produced a permanent schism any more than excommunication of any "contumacious bishop." The schism began to develop when all the other Eastern patriarchs supported Caerularius. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, it was the support of Emperor Michael VI Stratiotikos that impelled them to support Caerularius.[48] [also the other Patriarchs were appointed by Constantinople and so were bound to support it]. Some have questioned the validity of the bull on the grounds that Pope Leo IX had died at that time and so the authority of the legates to issue such a bull is unclear.[47]
The legates left for Rome two days after issuing the bull of excommunication, leaving behind a city near riot. The patriarch had the immense support of the people against the emperor, who had supported the legates to his own detriment. To assuage popular anger, the bull was burnt, and the legates were anathematized. Only the legates were anathematized and, in this case too, there was no explicit indication that the entire Western church was being anathematized.

Damaris said:

Orthodox wiki has it right. It's important to understand that apostolic succession is in the Church, not the person, and anyone who departs from the Orthodox Church cannot have apostolic succession of any kind. So RevJohnG, it wouldn't matter if your bishops were consecrated by St Peter himself - if Peter had departed the Orthodox Church at the time, he would be no bishop and his consecrations would have had no effect. (He also wouldn't be St Peter, but that's beside the point now!) Besides, your denomination's tracing of apostolic lines reveals a Western Augustinian view of apostolic succession that is completely incompatible with Orthodox apostolic succession.

I would add that if Pope Benedict, for example, repented of heresy tomorrow and sought entry into the Orthodox Church, he would by no means be the "Patriarch of the West" automatically. Those receiving him into the Church might not perform an episcopal consecration, but they would only see him as an Orthodox bishop by oikonomia, by virtue of him repudiating his errors and accepting the apostolic faith, not as a foregone conclusion based on his RC consecration as a bishop and 2005 election as pope. That's a very common and pernicious error - perceiving receptions of people into the church by oikonomia as recognitions of sacramental grace in other religions. Also, as I mentioned, the Western view of apostolic succession is incompatible with the Orthodox teaching of it. A formerly non-Orthodox bishop may be made an Orthodox bishop by being received into the Church, but his apostolic succession derives from the Church which receives him, never from the invalid lineage of heterodox bishops who first performed a rite of consecration over him.

Click to expand...

I will preface my comments by stating I am not not debating but inquiring.


You state that if Pope Benedict were to admit that he was heretical and sought entry into the Orthodox church, that he would not automatically assume the position as Patriach of the West.

who specifically would make that decision ? I would also like to ask how one reconciles this perceived authority with the Apostle Paul's ministry in scripture ? Paul never sought permission to spread the word to the Gentiles, he was called by God.

he met with the Apostles a few times, but he never put himself in a position of subordination to any of the apostles. He even chastised and corrected Peter. This would indicate that he did not percieve Peter to be his superior in Christ.

I was born and raised Catholic, and the scripture often leads me to ask similar questions of my fellow Catholics.

I was born and raised Catholic, and the scripture often leads me to ask similar questions of my fellow Catholics.

Click to expand...

I am going to change the order of your post a little. We are not Catholic, please do not group us in with them.

eastcoast_bsc said:

who specifically would make that decision ? I would also like to ask how one reconciles this perceived authority with the Apostle Paul's ministry in scripture ? Paul never sought permission to spread the word to the Gentiles, he was called by God.

he met with the Apostles a few times, but he never put himself in a position of subordination to any of the apostles. He even chastised and corrected Peter. This would indicate that he did not percieve Peter to be his superior in Christ.

Click to expand...

Who would make that decision? The Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church gathering in an extra-ordinary council would be the only ones to have the authority to make a decision as monumental as admitting the Roman Church back into the Orthodox Church.

Your comment about the Apostle Paul only strengthens the Orthodox position that no bishop is above any other bishop and hence Rome can not be infallible or have universal jurisdiction.

MoNiCa4316 said:

What do you think about this? (from Wikipedia)

Mutual excommunication of 1054
Most of the direct causes of the Great Schism, however, are far less grandiose than the famous Filioque. The relations between the papacy and the Byzantine court were good in the years leading up to 1054. The emperor Constantine IX and the Pope Leo IX were allied through the mediation of the Lombard catepan of Italy, Argyrus, who had spent years in Constantinople, originally as a political prisoner.
Patriarch Michael I ordered a letter to be written to the bishop of Trani in which he attacked the "Judaistic" practices of the West, namely the use of unleavened bread. The letter was to be sent by John to all the bishops of the West, including the Pope. John promptly complied and the letter was passed to Humbert of Mourmoutiers, the cardinal-bishop of Silva Candida, who translated the letter into Latin and brought it to the Pope, who ordered a reply to be made to each charge and a defense of papal supremacy to be laid out in a response.
Although he was hot-headed, Michael was convinced to cool the debate and thus attempt to prevent the impending breach. However, Humbert and the Pope made no concessions and Humbert was sent with legatine powers to the imperial capital to resolve the questions raised, once and for all. Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine, and Peter, Archbishop of Amalfi arrived in April 1054 and were met with a hostile reception; they stormed out of the palace, leaving the papal response with Michael, who in turn was even more angered by their actions. The patriarch refused to recognize their authority or, practically, their existence.[46] When Pope Leo died on April 19, 1054, the legates' authority legally ceased, but they effectively ignored this technicality.[47]
In response to Micheal's refusal to address the issues at hand, the legatine mission took the extreme measure of entering the church of the Hagia Sophia during the Divine Liturgy and placing a bull of excommunication on the altar.
The consummation of the East–West Schism is thus generally dated from the year 1054, when this sequence of events took place. However, these events only triggered the beginning of the schism, and it was not actually consummated by the seemingly mutual excommunications. The New Catholic Encyclopedia reports that the legates had been careful not to intimate that the bull of excommunication implied a general excommunication of the Byzantine Church. The bull excommunicated only Caerularius, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents. Thus, the New Catholic Encyclopedia argues that the dispute need not have produced a permanent schism any more than excommunication of any "contumacious bishop." The schism began to develop when all the other Eastern patriarchs supported Caerularius. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, it was the support of Emperor Michael VI Stratiotikos that impelled them to support Caerularius.[48] [also the other Patriarchs were appointed by Constantinople and so were bound to support it]. Some have questioned the validity of the bull on the grounds that Pope Leo IX had died at that time and so the authority of the legates to issue such a bull is unclear.[47]
The legates left for Rome two days after issuing the bull of excommunication, leaving behind a city near riot. The patriarch had the immense support of the people against the emperor, who had supported the legates to his own detriment. To assuage popular anger, the bull was burnt, and the legates were anathematized. Only the legates were anathematized and, in this case too, there was no explicit indication that the entire Western church was being anathematized.

Click to expand...

What I think is 1. wikipedia has never been, nor never will be a credible source on anything and 2. you need to speak to an Orthodox priest and stop spending so much time trying to rationalize something that can not be understood by reason.

Michael the Iconographer said:

I am going to change the order of your post a little. We are not Catholic, please do not group us in with them.

Click to expand...

I don't think that he was grouping you guys with Catholics...he was simply stating that as he is asking questions of you Orthodox folks, he ALSO poses like questions to his fellow Catholic folks. I could be wrong but I don't think so.

Here is a statement from the Moscow Patriarchate in 1961: HTC: The Significance of Apostolic Succession in Heterodoxy Pt. 1 (written by Patriarch Sergei in 1935).

Michael the Iconographer said:

By excommunicating and anathematizing the legate of the Pope, the Pope was excommunicated and anathematized as well. At this point Rome ceased to have valid Apostolic succession.

Click to expand...

The Pope died while the legates were on their way to Constantinople. Their legacy was actually illegal and invalid in the first place...

Serious question here and I apologize in advance if this has already been covered. But if Rome has fallen into heresy and no longer has valid apostolic succession, then why has the Pope never been deposed and replaced with an Orthodox Bishop of Rome? This is what happens with Bishops at other sees, it has even happened with other Patriarchs. But why not Rome?

JohntheTheologian said:

The Pope died while the legates were on their way to Constantinople. Their legacy was actually illegal and invalid in the first place...

Click to expand...

That matters little considering the 1000 years of heresy Rome has taught since the schism. If the successor Pope had publicly lifted the anathema placed on the "EP and all who agree with him" then maybe history would be different. However, no such action was taken.

BuckeyeStu said:

Serious question here and I apologize in advance if this has already been covered. But if Rome has fallen into heresy and no longer has valid apostolic succession, then why has the Pope never been deposed and replaced with an Orthodox Bishop of Rome? This is what happens with Bishops at other sees, it has even happened with other Patriarchs. But why not Rome?

Click to expand...

Reverse your question, why did Rome never attempt to replace the EP and the other 3 Patriarchs who were with him at the time?