Zobel said:

---

The line of succession is about the bishops doing the ordaining, not the one being ordained.

---

I guess I am failing to see what the big deal is, for lack of a better way to describe it. Shrug. I appreciate the insight however.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I guess I thought there would be more to it, with the emphasis being on this idea that the "line is not broken".

What I am hearing is that anyone can be nominated and achieve this position, assuming they meet the qualifications outlined above. Do these nominating bishops have some kind of special revelation that gives them special insight as to who should be in this position?

Or maybe I need a better understanding of what the line of apostolic succession is intended to be.

---

The "line is not broken" is only important because of what exists inside of that line:apostolic authority. The leadership of the church. The church Jesus left to the apostles.

I know I'm a broken record on this, but it's why I keep hitting on the fact that Jesus didn't leave any texts, command any text be written or tell believers they should go read the texts that did exist and decide. He left men in charge (protected by the Holy Spirit) that passed down that charge to the next generation, who passed it down to the next, so on and so forth. So the church that Jesus founded still exists in that line of apostolic succession.

I hear you that Jesus didn't write scripture himself, but you cannot deny the involvement of the Holy Spirit within scripture and the way that God providentially brings about these men who did write these written oracles that we now call the Bible.

I think we can safely assume the fact that Jesus stopping Paul dead in his tracks on the road to Damascus, and Paul then prolifically writing letters to the early churches implies the fact that it was in God's perfect and sovereign will that these writings be left for us to use and guide us. The fact that God providentially kept these written scrolls protected and usable for those many early centuries. I think it is safe to say we would be screwed (for lack of a better word) if we didn't have the Bible.

I just am failing to connect the dots on bishops from generation after generation who nominate whomever to become the head bishop have some kind of special, apostolic gifting. Is it the fact that these bishops are being given supernatural enlightenment from the Holy Spirit? It seems like they would have to.

Because that's the example given in the scriptures. Not anyone can ordain, it is left to the bishops.

So does the scripture not exist without the church? Sounds to me if the ordination process was left in scripture, then the church doesn't exist without the scripture?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

So does the Bible not exist without the church? Sounds to me if the ordination process was left in scripture, then the church doesn't exist without the Bible?

---

No, the Bible doesn't exist without the church. That's how it was kept safe and promulgated. We believe the church was divinely protected in this respect.

Can the church exist without the Bible? For a time, yes. We know that because it took a few decades for the writing to begin and the church was already established by Jesus. In 2025? I don't think so. I think the Bible helps protect the church like the church helped protect the Bible. Sacred Scripture with Sacred Tradition. As it has been throughout all of Christian history since the writing started.

Gotcha, that helps.

PabloSerna said:

---

" I think history, and tradition alike have proven the Orthodox one to be more accurate/true vs. the RCC claims/understandings."

I think this is impossible to prove and only serves to divide. We shouldn't be keeping score.

---

Just giving my take. I'm neither RCC nor Orthodox, tho I've long been "orthodox curious" to be fair.

Not really related but this is the picture I have in my head when anyone mentions "tradition!"

Timely topic in my morning reading: "Special Revelation Inscripturated"

One of the texts used, admits to the idea the letters of Paul are "hard to understand". Kind of a sobering reminder as we all seem to come at scripture in our different "lenses." I will be praying to not have spiritual ignorance.

2 Peter 3:13-16

But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Timely topic in my morning reading: "Special Revelation Inscripturated"

One of the texts used, admits to the idea the letters of Paul are "hard to understand". Kind of a sobering reminder as we all seem to come at scripture in our different "lenses." I will be praying to not have spiritual ignorance.

2 Peter 3:13-16

But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

---

That was a big part of my ending up where I did. Thanks for sharing

Here is a recent discussion as to part of a series regarding whether Francis is 'really' the Pope for the RCC types:

Quote:

---

A short time ago, I did a video on the life and career of Bishop Ren Henry Gracida the 101-year-old former bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas and his controversial views on whether Francis really is the pope and what happened with Benedict XVI's resignation.
This is a part of a debate which LifeSiteNews has been hosting over the last few months asking the question, "Is Francis really the pope?"
We've had some really outstanding articles published on both sides of the question. The standard of argumentation has been really high. And we're going to let this debate continue.
We're going to let it continue because, as I said in my Rome Life Forum conference a few months ago, the Church is Christ's. I know that the truth of Christ will come out. I believe that reasoned, prayerful debate on the matter is an aid to arriving at that truth.
Back to Lenga. Some of you will have heard about Lenga before, not least on LifeSiteNews but there's a ton of material you may not have heard, which he has put out only in Polish. I'm going to share some of that with you today.
This is The John-Henry Westen Show.

---

(From second link above):

Quote:

---

It is right that views held by sincere Catholics should be openly and responsibly discussed by a media organization like LifeSiteNews, which is dedicated to seeking the truth about the underlying causes of the crisis in the Church and the modern world.
There is an urgent need for faithful Catholics all those who look to the magisterium of the Catholic Church as their rule of faith to work together to come to a deeper understanding of what has happened in the Church in recent decades. While the situation is distressing to many, it would seem that this exercise can only be done by engaging with the Church's teaching and seeking, as best we can, to apply it to the facts of our times.
We will not always agree with each other, but we need to remain charitable. In that spirit, we have welcomed over two dozen articles by prelates, priests and laymen. Some believe that Francis is the pope. Others believe that Pope Francis cannot be the pope, either because Pope Benedict XVI resigned invalidly, they believe, or because, they argue, Pope Francis is guilty of heresy.

---

This how the devil works- divide and conquer.

PabloSerna said:

---

This how the devil works- divide and conquer.

---

Do I think pope Francis is legitimately pope? 95% yes. I don't personally push the theory that he is not.

But as Catholics we do have to come to grips with the anti-popes of the past. It's a thing.