Line of succession - LDS and Roman Catholic

[pogi]

After poptart introduced me to a video by Casey Cole, a Fransiscan friar/Catholic priest which I thoroughly enjoyed, I ended up watching some of his other videos and found this one fascinating:

 

Obviously, we make the same claim of being the one true church and therefore have many of the same reasons/arguments with the obvious differences in regard to the great apostasy. 

One fact that I found particularly fascinating is that 99% of bishops today all run through the same line of succession back to one Scipione Rebiba who was ordained a bishop in 1541.   There are only 3 other extent Roman lines today (besides the 12 living Roman Bishops consecrated by Maronite Bishops - which is apparently a whole different story - one I'd be interested in learning about).  Of the roughly 5600 living Roman Bishops only 58 (yes, 58!) living bishops come from one of the other 3 lines.   Apparently Rebiba did not ordain many Bishops, but one of his successors - Benedict XIII, Pietro Francesco Orsinid Gravina - did ordain over 100 bishops and 99% of bishops alive today come through him.  

How is this even possible?  With Christ ordaining the apostles, and each apostle ordaining other bishops, etc. etc. you would expect to see a diagram resembling a family tree that branches out.  Why did all the bishops stop ordaining other bishops?  How many bishops existed before 1541?  It seems inconceivable that no other bishops were ordaining other bishops besides Rebiba or his successor Benedict XIII.  Where did all the other lines go???  For a church that is over 2000 years old, the fact that there are only 4 extant lines is mind-boggling.  How did 1500 years of branching out end up in one enormous bottle neck?

It would be fascinating to see the actual succession back to Christ.   

I love that the LDS line of succession to Christ is not merely "theoretical" but we each have a documented succession line to Christ.

Anyway, anybody understand how and why this bottleneck happened?  Almost all Catholic authority relies on the valid ordination and unbroken succession of Rebiba's line.  It seems so delicate. 

Is this bottleneck evidence of a great apostasy, or is there some other simple and reasonable explanation?  In a healthy vibrant church, we would expect to see numerous lines and branches from Christ and the apostles  (which probably happened in the beginning), with thousands of lines over 2000 years, yet for 1500 years from Christ, there is essentially only 1 single theoretical line.  A LOT hangs on that one line.  Compare that to the LDS church where in only 191 years there are countless thousands of lines of succession going back to Christ.  Barring another significant apostasy we only expect it to grow.  How we could ever end up with just one line after 1500 of existence is unfathomable without a great apostasy.

I realize that a LOT hangs on our claim of ordination from Peter, James, and both John’s and ultimately it is a matter of faith, but I am just curious to hear explanations for the apparent dead end of virtually all lines but one.

Edited October 5, 2021 by pogi

[The Nehor]

From what I have read most Priesthood lines of succession go through Brigham Young. A similar question can be asked about what was up with the lines going through our other early apostles and why they died out.

They propagate and subsume other lines and the odds of each new bishop being ordained by one of the ‘big’ line increase with time and the odds increase with each new person added to the line. It is an expected outcome and not out of the ordinary.

[rpn]

1541 is pretty late in the game.  There are multiple popes at the same time a couple of times.   One female pope (who dressed male).   Bishops of Rome has as much to do with government as religion.   Hugh Nibley wrote a great book on this:   Apostles and Bishops in the Early Church, if I recall correctly.

[MiserereNobis]

13 minutes ago, rpn said:

There are multiple popes at the same time a couple of times.

To clarify, there is only one true pope at a time. Any other claimants to the papacy are anti-popes. There have been times when it is not clear who the pope is, but those have always been resolved. There are anti-popes today. The most "interesting" example is pope Michael. Here is his website: https://www.vaticaninexile.com

15 minutes ago, rpn said:

One female pope (who dressed male)

This is false. It was a medieval legend that has been debunked. Go here for an overview of the debunking (and follow the sources for in-depth information): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan#Modern_analysis_and_critique

16 minutes ago, rpn said:

Bishops of Rome has as much to do with government as religion. 

The idea of separation of church and state is relatively modern, so attacking popes for being political is an example of presentism.

Also, Pope Francis is the absolute monarch of Vatican City  

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

After poptart introduced me to a video by Casey Cole, a Fransiscan friar/Catholic priest which I thoroughly enjoyed, I ended up watching some of his other videos and found this one fascinating:

 

Obviously, we make the same claim of being the one true church and therefore have many of the same reasons/arguments with the obvious differences in regard to the great apostasy. 

One fact that I found particularly fascinating is that 99% of bishops today all run through the same line of succession back to one Scipione Rebiba who was ordained a bishop in 1541.   There are only 3 other extent Roman lines today (besides the 12 living Roman Bishops consecrated by Maronite Bishops - which is apparently a whole different story - one I'd be interested in learning about).  Of the roughly 5600 living Roman Bishops only 58 (yes, 58!) living bishops come from one of the other 3 lines.   Apparently Rebiba did not ordain many Bishops, but one of his successors - Benedict XIII, Pietro Francesco Orsinid Gravina - did ordain over 100 bishops and 99% of bishops alive today come through him.  

How is this even possible?  With Christ ordaining the apostles, and each apostle ordaining other bishops, etc. etc. you would expect to see a diagram resembling a family tree that branches out.  Why did all the bishops stop ordaining other bishops?  How many bishops existed before 1541?  It seems inconceivable that no other bishops were ordaining other bishops besides Rebiba or his successor Benedict XIII.  Where did all the other lines go???  For a church that is over 2000 years old, the fact that there are only 4 extant lines is mind-boggling.  How did 1500 years of branching out end up in one enormous bottle neck?

It would be fascinating to see the actual succession back to Christ.   

I love that the LDS line of succession to Christ is not merely "theoretical" but we each have a documented succession line to Christ.

Anyway, anybody understand how and why this bottleneck happened?  Almost all Catholic authority relies on the valid ordination and unbroken succession of Rebiba's line.  It seems so delicate. 

Is this bottleneck evidence of a great apostasy, or is there some other simple and reasonable explanation?  In a healthy vibrant church, we would expect to see numerous lines and branches from Christ and the apostles  (which probably happened in the beginning), with thousands of lines over 2000 years, yet for 1500 years from Christ, there is essentially only 1 single theoretical line.  A LOT hangs on that one line.  Compare that to the LDS church where in only 191 years there are countless thousands of lines of succession going back to Christ.  Barring another significant apostasy we only expect it to grow.  How we could ever end up with just one line after 1500 of existence is unfathomable without a great apostasy.

I realize that a LOT hangs on our claim of ordination from Peter, James, and both John’s and ultimately it is a matter of faith, but I am just curious to hear explanations for the apparent dead end of virtually all lines but one.

This is very intriguing. I've never explored lines of succession, so I don't have a ready answer for you. I'll poke around and learn some more about my own faith. Thanks for the posting!

[pogi]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

From what I have read most Priesthood lines of succession go through Brigham Young. A similar question can be asked about what was up with the lines going through our other early apostles and why they died out.

They propagate and subsume other lines and the odds of each new bishop being ordained by one of the ‘big’ line increase with time and the odds increase with each new person added to the line. It is an expected outcome and not out of the ordinary.

I would be curious to see what percentage of our lines do go through Brigham.  This does not seem terribly remarkable to me however considering that Brigham was an original apostle and second in line from Joseph.  We also can point to a fairly significant apostasy in the early Kirkland period with many original members and apostles leaving the church.  This was followed up by the great division of the church after Josephs death, with many lines following the RLDS branch and the others following Brigham.  Most lines in early missionary work throughout England likely go through Brigham, which accounts for a significant portion of our pioneer heritage today.    If almost all lines were able to be traced back to one original apostle in the Catholic church I wouldn't think much about it, but the fact that it bottlenecks into primarily one line after 1500 years is out of the ordinary and without an apparent explanation.   If after 1500 years of existence our priesthood line authority bottlenecked into the line of one single person with authority, something terribly wrong has happened in the church.

If this bottleneck phenomenon is natural and mathematically predictable, then we would expect to see many bottlenecks throughout history in the church.   The only possible reasonable explanation I can think of is that the act of ordaining new priests/bishops in the catholic church was delegated/reserved for only a small handful of bishops  at that time period- but with the global spread of the church, this seems unlikely. 

I'm trying to understand how one priesthood line could "subsume" another line.  Wouldn't that require a merging of lines into a single person/line?  How is that possible if a person is only ordained once by one line?  The only way a line could end is through eventual apostasy of the line or cessation of ordination of every single successor in your line of ordination.   It would be like every one of your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, etc. etc. grandpa's progenitors became sterile and stopped reproducing or died off. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by pogi

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, rpn said:

1541 is pretty late in the game.  There are multiple popes at the same time a couple of times.   One female pope (who dressed male).   Bishops of Rome has as much to do with government as religion.   Hugh Nibley wrote a great book on this:   Apostles and Bishops in the Early Church, if I recall correctly.

The female pope is generally regarded as a myth. She is said to have been pope in the 9th century but there is no mention of her anywhere until the 13th century. There were enemies of the church at the time of the alleged female pope that would have made hay over it, mostly rivals to the Pope in Constantinople but they were silent. It was generally believed by everyone for a few centuries but there is no real evidence she existed.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I would be curious to see what percentage of our lines do go through Brigham.  This does not seem terribly remarkable to me however considering that Brigham was an original apostle and second in line from Joseph.  We also can point to a fairly significant apostasy in the early Kirkland period with many original members and apostles leaving the church.  This was followed up by the great division of the church after Josephs death, with many lines following the RLDS branch and the others following Brigham.  Most lines in early missionary work throughout England likely go through Brigham, which accounts for a significant portion of our pioneer heritage today.    If almost all lines were able to be traced back to one original apostle in the Catholic church I wouldn't think much about it, but the fact that it bottlenecks into primarily one line after 1500 years is out of the ordinary and without an apparent explanation.   If after 1500 years of existence our priesthood line authority bottlenecked into the line of one single person with authority, something terribly wrong has happened in the church.

If this bottleneck phenomenon is natural and mathematically predictable, then we would expect to see many bottlenecks throughout history in the church.   The only possible reasonable explanation I can think of is that the act of ordaining new priests/bishops in the catholic church was delegated/reserved for only a small handful of bishops  at that time period- but with the global spread of the church, this seems unlikely. 

I'm trying to understand how one priesthood line could "subsume" another line.  Wouldn't that require a merging of lines into a single person/line?  How is that possible if a person is only ordained once by one line?  The only way a line could end is through eventual apostasy of the line or cessation of ordination of every single successor in your line of ordination.   It would be like every one of your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, etc. etc. grandpa's progenitors became sterile and stopped reproducing or died off. 

It gets subsumed by someone being ordained by someone in the predominant line. If you have someone ordain half the bishops in the Church once then you have a 50/50 shot of each new bishop being brought into that line and everyone they ordain. It just takes one generation of that happening to skew the ordination figures forever and if people in that branch are more likely to rise to the top due to factional power or dumb luck or whatever it is quite possible for them to take over everything.

This is much less likely to happen in the Church because we are generally ordained by our parents. However if you look at the apostolic line I bet there are points where they all branch from the same person. Several people (prophets) are probably in every living apostle’s line of authority because of the way it is passed on. Since new apostles are ordained by the senior apostle some of them ordain a lot of new apostles who all have the same person in their line.

This isn’t the same since the Catholic Church has more bishops but there are likely to be times where individuals ordain a LOT of other bishops for any number of reasons and while it will not happen regularly this often means eventually all or nearly all will eventually fall into their line. Unless there are restrictions or cultural reasons preventing people in this line from ordaining new replacing those who have not ‘descended’ from this bishop I expect that eventually everyone will fall into the one line. It seems weird but the odds back it up even though it seems counterintuitive.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

.......................   If after 1500 years of existence our priesthood line authority bottlenecked into the line of one single person with authority, something terribly wrong has happened in the church.

If this bottleneck phenomenon is natural and mathematically predictable, then we would expect to see many bottlenecks throughout history in the church.   The only possible reasonable explanation I can think of is that the act of ordaining new priests/bishops in the catholic church was delegated/reserved for only a small handful of bishops  at that time period- but with the global spread of the church, this seems unlikely. 

I'm trying to understand how one priesthood line could "subsume" another line.  Wouldn't that require a merging of lines into a single person/line?  How is that possible if a person is only ordained once by one line?  The only way a line could end is through eventual apostasy of the line or cessation of ordination of every single successor in your line of ordination.   It would be like every one of your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, etc. etc. grandpa's progenitors became sterile and stopped reproducing or died off. 

DNA bottlenecks happen, and family lines end.  There is nothing at all strange about it.  75% of Europe died in the Black Death.  It is rather survival and continuity which is surprising.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

...........  For a church that is over 2000 years old, the fact that there are only 4 extant lines is mind-boggling.  How did 1500 years of branching out end up in one enormous bottle neck?

It would be fascinating to see the actual succession back to Christ.   .............................

A major problem is that the Apostles of Jesus in the 1st century A.D. began to replace themselves when one died, but that process apparently stopped.  Why?  A bishop is not an apostle.

Moreover, we have lines of succession among the Orthodox, many branches of Orthodoxy cut off from the main branches for long periods (the Ethiopian Church a prime example).  They would be every bit as legitimate as the Roman Catholic line of succession, and in their eyes even moreso.  The Anglican communion is yet another example.  Yet none of those are instances of apostolic succession, merely local bishops.  Designating them as archbishops or cardinals doesn't bridge the gap.

Another question we need to address is ancient modes of succession.  Some priesthood is transmitted by lineage, father to son, as among the tribe of Levi, and which is sanctioned (approved) in the D&C.  Yet we clearly have priesthood being transmitted outside that line -- how does the great biblical prophet and Ephraimite Samuel get his authority from Eli the HP?  At the same time, Saul is declared to be among a school of ecstatic prophets.  "School" as in a school of fish.  Where does the non-Hebrew Melchizedek fit in -- Abraham paid him tithes -- and/or Jethro, the HP of Midian, Moses' non-Israelite father-in-law?  God seems to have priests, authentic priests, wherever He wants them.  Our modern view may be particularly narrow and superficial.

[Ipod Touch]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The most "interesting" example is pope Michael. Here is his website: https://www.vaticaninexile.com

Pope Michael is based.

Quote

The Catholic Church teaches that a heretic cannot become Pope any more than an unbaptized person or a woman.

 

[InCognitus]

On 10/5/2021 at 9:29 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

A major problem is that the Apostles of Jesus in the 1st century A.D. began to replace themselves when one died, but that process apparently stopped.  Why?  A bishop is not an apostle.

I noticed that Father Casey acknowledges and emphasizes the importance of replacing apostles in the video (starting at approximately the 3:10 mark), but he then shifts from apostles to bishops, as if they are one in the same (but they are not!). 

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I noticed that Father Casey acknowledges and emphasizes the importance of replacing apostles in the video (starting at approximately the 3:10 mark), but he then shifts from apostles to bishops, as if they are one in the same (but they are not!). 

A ...minor...quibble that 2000 years of tradition can more than rectify...  What happened is that the apostles got killed off in the seven years war or imprisoned. To Catholics their authority simply passed to bishops(despite the early Roman Church having thousands of bishops... and not 12. 

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

A ...minor...quibble that 2000 years of tradition can more than rectify...  What happened is that the apostles got killed off in the seven years war or imprisoned. To Catholics their authority simply passed to bishops(despite the early Roman Church having thousands of bishops... and not 12. 

Technically, all of the keys and authority of the apostles are collectively held in the lower quorums, so it could still exist on earth without a living prophet/apostle.  In our church, that quorum would then ordain new apostles though. 

This got me wondering, what would we do in our church in that hypothetical situation.  Do we have systems in place for that?  What would happen if, heaven forbid, conference was bombed and all of the apostles/prophets were killed - and many 70's?  How do they call new apostles?  Would it be by vote like the Catholics do?  Would all of the 70's have to be in the circle to ordain them?

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Technically, all of the keys and authority of the apostles are collectively held in the lower quorums, so it could still exist on earth without a living prophet/apostle.  In our church, that quorum would then ordain new apostles though. 

This got me wondering, what would we do in our church in that hypothetical situation.  Do we have systems in place for that?  What would happen if, heaven forbid, conference was bombed and all of the apostles/prophets were killed - and many 70's?  How do they call new apostles?  Would it be by vote like the Catholics do?  Would all of the 70's have to be in the circle to ordain them?

I guess the Church will soon have a chance to figure it out... not for the reasons you suggest, but I imagine some leaders will get translated, and their spots will need to be filled... but if the resurrection happens without them, then maybe not... then maybe they will be figuring out some other things.

[Stargazer]

I thought this might be an appropriate time to post this video on How to Become Pope! 

 

[Stargazer]

Just now, Stargazer said:

I thought this might be an appropriate time to post this video on How to Become Pope! 

 

And here's the footnote...

 

[Stargazer]

On 10/6/2021 at 1:24 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Also, Pope Francis is the absolute monarch of Vatican City  

Here's a nice video covering that, along with other interesting facts:

 

[ksfisher]

On 10/7/2021 at 4:12 PM, pogi said:

Technically, all of the keys and authority of the apostles are collectively held in the lower quorums,

Do you have a reference for this?  I don't believe that 70's hold priesthood keys.  What other quorums would hold the same keys that apostles do?

[Stormin' Mormon]

35 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Do you have a reference for this?  I don't believe that 70's hold priesthood keys.  What other quorums would hold the same keys that apostles do?

I don't know about "keys" but Doctrine and Covenants 107 makes mention of "authority:"

 

Quote

 

25 The Seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.

26 And they form a quorum, equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named.

27 And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other

 

 

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I don't know about "keys" but Doctrine and Covenants 107 makes mention of "authority:"

 

 

Right, but keys and authority are different things.  A person can have authority to act in their calling without holding priesthood keys. 

Edited October 11, 2021 by ksfisher

[pogi]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Do you have a reference for this?  I don't believe that 70's hold priesthood keys.  What other quorums would hold the same keys that apostles do?

This is what I was thinking about:

42 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I don't know about "keys" but Doctrine and Covenants 107 makes mention of "authority:"

Maybe I am wrong about the keys.   

It does make one wonder what would happen in the event of a tragic bombing of conference where all apostles and first presidency are killed.   How would all the keys be conferred to a new President?  What are all the offices which hold keys? 

I can think of:

• Mission presidents
• Stake presidents
• Branch presidents
• Temple presidents
• Bishops
• Melchizedek Priesthood quorum presidents

Any other?  Do patriarchs hold keys, or are their keys held by the stake president?

Would each one of these offices who hold keys have to get together to give their keys to a new president?  How would they decide who it would be?

As a side note, in reading the following lesson, there seems to be a contradiction.  Which statement is true?

Quote

Although each Apostle holds all the keys of the priesthood, it is the Lord’s plan that only one man at a time exercise these keys on behalf of the Church. For this reason the senior living Apostle (by date of ordination, not by age) is ordained President of the Church by the Quorum of the Twelve and given the right to exercise all the keys of the priesthood.

or:

Quote

 The prophet is the only man on earth who holds all the priesthood keys, but he has given some of these keys to the leaders who preside over the units of the Church; they in turn grant us permission to use our priesthood to bless Heavenly Father’s children.

I am assuming the first is true, so why do we so often hear the second taught?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-b/priesthood-and-church-government/lesson-2-the-keys-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

What are all the offices which hold keys? 

I can think of:

• Mission presidents
• Stake presidents
• Branch presidents
• Temple presidents
• Bishops
• Melchizedek Priesthood quorum presidents

Any other?  Do patriarchs hold keys, or are their keys held by the stake president?

Branch presidents don't hold priesthood keys.

Patriarchs don't.

Teachers and deacons quorum presidents hold keys.

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

It does make one wonder what would happen in the event of a tragic bombing of conference where all apostles and first presidency are killed.   How would all the keys be conferred to a new President? 

The same way Joseph Smith received them.

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Branch presidents don't hold priesthood keys.

According to the lesson I linked to above, they do.

Quote

The President of the Church, therefore, is the only man on earth who has the power to exercise all of the keys of the priesthood (see D&C 132:7). However, he delegates certain keys to the leaders who preside in the Church. These men include mission presidents, branch presidents, temple presidents, stake presidents, bishops, and Melchizedek Priesthood quorum presidents. They in turn delegate a portion of their authority (but not their keys) to men and women in their units by setting them apart to different offices and callings.

And this:

Quote

 

However, there are certain rights that one can be given that are only temporary. A branch president, for example, holds the keys of his branch only for the time he remains branch president. When he is released from that position, he no longer holds these keys.

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-b/priesthood-and-church-government/lesson-2-the-keys-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Apparently, mission presidents hold the keys for district presidents, but branch presidents hold their own keys. 

32 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The same way Joseph Smith received them.

That's one theory, I guess.  Any reference?  Would it need to happen that way though?  If all the keys exist on the earth, I don't see the need for Peter, James, and John to restore the keys again. 

Edited October 11, 2021 by pogi

[ksfisher]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

That's one theory, I guess.  Any reference?  Would it need to happen that way though?  If all the keys exist on the earth, I don't see the need for Peter, James, and John to restore the keys again. 

If all the apostolic keyholders were to be taken from the earth, no one would be left to confer keys on successors.  How else would a new apostle or president of the church receive them if no one on earth held them. 

Edited October 12, 2021 by ksfisher