How did the Catholic Church choose which Sacred Tradition is infallible when there are conflicting traditions, such as the Filioque controversy, especially considering that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have valid apostolic succession according to the Catholic Church?

Did early Christian writers teach apostolic succession or reject it? How do their teachings on this topic compare with contemporary and significant historical understandings of apostolic succession?

According to Wikipedia the longest papal election in the history of the Catholic Church was from November 1268 to September 1, 1271. How long can the Catholic Church be without a pope so that we can say that the succession was broken? If there is defined no length of time, then if simply we don't need a pope for three hundred years, we can wait that long to elect one and papal succession would remain unbroken.

Many Church traditions claim unbroken Apostolic succession such as Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and others. It seems as though there are gaps in the successions of some of these traditions where they are delineated. Can any Church tradition or denomination actually demonstrate unbroken Apostolic succession or are there gaps in every account making them all just claims with varying degrees of 'proof'?

Catholics and some Protestants believe that priests/pastors can forgive sin, usually citing John 20:23 as justification. For example, one variant of the Anglican liturgy has the Pastor make the following pronouncement: > By the authority of Christ given to the Church I absolve you from your sins Another, similar form: > By [Christ's] authority committed to me, I absolve you from all your sins Other Protestants believe that John 20:23 only applied to the original Apostles and would apparently object to the above. (I should note that my understanding is that Protestants, and perhaps even Roman Catholics, do agree that pastors/priests aren't *themselves* able to absolve sin, but merely serve as "intermediaries" of Christ to do so. Indeed, the specifics of the above clearly call this out.) Now, this discussion is *usually* entangled with the Roman Catholic belief in the Apostolic Succession. However, as I understand it, all Protestants reject the Succession. On what grounds, therefore, do (some) Protestants accept John 20:23 as applying to all called and ordained ministers? (In other words, what do those Protestants who side with Roman Catholics on the matter of the priestly/pastoral ability to deliver or withhold forgiveness respond to those who deny such ability?) Related reading: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/91388 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89608 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/13841 - [Does John 20:23 mean that Catholic priests can forgive sins?](https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/does-john-2023-mean-that-catholic-priests-can-forgive-sins/)

I suppose this question is a bit twofold: I'm wondering what Churches the Apostles are historically held to have founded, and in what places; and I'm also wondering who are the men historically held to have succeeded the Apostles as the leaders of these churches, before and after the Apostles' deaths? Do we have any contemporary record of this succession? Are any of the successors Church Fathers? Ultimately I'm interested in looking further into what, if anything, remains of the teaching of these early successors, and what their respective particular Churches express in common of the faith, or on which elements they lay special stress. Thank you for your help! Dan

I was recently in conversation with a lady who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. She said they are the "true" church because apostolic authority was lost after the death of Jesus' 12 disciples, and that authority was not regained until Joseph Smith met with Moroni (son of Mormon). Reading the Introduction from The Book of Mormon, it says (in part): >The crowning event recorded in the Book of Mormon is the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ among the Nephites soon after his resurrection... On September 21, 1823, the same Moroni, then a glorified, resurrected being, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith... Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is his revelator and prophet in these last days, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the second coming of the Messiah. ***What I can't find are any official LDS statements to support her claim that apostolic authority was lost after the death of Jesus' 12 disciples, and that authority was not regained until Joseph Smith was given it by God.*** Before I can respond to this LDS lady I need more information on the LDS view of apostolic authority being granted to Joseph Smith.

Can there be valid Apostolic Succession in multiple churches, such as Orthodox, Anglican, Church of the East, and Coptic Church? If so, how do Catholic church reconcile this with it's belief in being the only one true church?

Who consecrated Heahmund as the Bishop of Sherborne , What was his Apostolic Lineage?

In July 2014, Archbishop Timothy Paul of the Holy Orthodox Christian Church, as reported by [Premier Christian News](https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/martin-luther-king-jr-made-a-saint-by-american-church) , said: > Dr. King was Catholic because he inspired the Universal Church. He was evangelical because of his Baptist roots, and he was charismatic. The Roman Catholic Church cannot make him a saint because he was not a Roman Catholic. But our church body, which has full apostolic succession, can present him to the entire Christian faith to be venerated on April 4th, the date of his assassination. **Q. What is the role of 'apostolic succession' in uplifting men and women into the ranks of saints? And does this differ from how the Catholic Church beatify men and women into sainthood?**

**If 95% of Catholic bishops today can trace their line of apostolic succession through Cardinal Scipione Rebiba; who are the 5% remaining lineages traced through?** > [Who was Scipione Rebiba?](http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art385.htm) > > Sicilian-born Scipione Rebiba would be remembered no more than any other sixteenth-century bishop of the Roman Catholic Church did he not boast a particular historical distinction which arose long after his death. Over ninety-five percent of the bishops serving the Church today trace their line of apostolic succession through this cardinal. This is the so-called ***Rebiban Succession***, and it descends through numerous bishops to every pope elected since 1724. In truth, Scipione Rebiba wasn't particularly zealous in consecrating bishops, but some of his successors were.

His Eminence Scipione Rebiba is considered as the last bishop most Roman Catholic bishops can trace their episcopal lineages from. Who consecrated Scipione Rebiba? If we don't know, are there at least theories on who did? The *Wikipedia* article on him says: > "However, since it is canon law that there must be at least three bishops present at a consecration, it is possible to bypass Rebiba using the bishops who cooperated with him in his consecrations." Are there any records about who cooperated with him?

Isn't the fact that [Thomas Cranmer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cranmer) was validly ordained by the Roman Catholic Church certain proof that the Anglican Church holds valid apostolic succession? Why then is it denied by the Roman Catholic Church?

I noticed in a comment that Lutherans have apostolic succession I figured this was a purely Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox thing is there a comparable Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Lutheran world?

**How do protestants respond to apostolic succession(the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles) ?** Pope Clement I > “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they > appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be > the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, > for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . > . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would > be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having > received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already > been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if > they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” > (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]). Hegesippus > “When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was > Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him > Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance > of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” > (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]). Irenaeus > “It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to > know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has > been made known to us throughouart the whole world. And we are in a > position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the > apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither > knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against > Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]). Etc...

**Why do the successors of the Apostles do not carry the titles and dignity as apostles?** It seems that the apostles do not have the successors known in title and/or dignity as an apostle? Why is this?

Roman Catholics believe in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which is a sacrament by which men are ordained as priests or deacons . It is a sacrament carried out by a bishop, who must lay his hands on them, but where do we find this in the bible?

What did the Apostolic Fathers, Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Ante-Nicene Church in general believe about the continuation of the office of Apostle? Were they cessationists or continuationists with respect to the office of Apostle? Can this be reliably answered from the historical records of the Ante-Nicene period of the Church? ___ **Appendix - NT passages on Apostles** > 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 **built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets**, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22 ESV) > 11 **And he gave the apostles**, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. (Ephesians 4:11-14 ESV) > 27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 **And God has appointed in the church first apostles**, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 **Are all apostles?** Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. (1 Corinthians 12:27-30 ESV) ___ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/90559/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86076/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/90502/50422

How come there is no evidence issued out by the Vatican that proves their list of Popes that have carried on from Apostle Peter? I can't find this anywhere and since I can't meet Pope Francis unless I'm Katy Perry or Trump, how would I ever be able to find out about this? I can't really enter the Vatican and ask... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes I can't just trust the Vatican by their 'words'. I don't KNOW if they really did come from the line of Peter or not. I can only go by their word. This is not good enough for me. What if they made these people up? So far we can prove St Linus and St Clement existed since they were mentioned by Apostle Paul in the NT but whether they went onto being Arcbishops; we don't know for sure. How do we know whether the Catholic church is the successor of Peter or the Orthodox church? Since they both claim they are from the line of Peter...

I'm actively studying apostolic succession and am trying to make a website (with API) that would try to make a timeline. However, finding the links between two bishops/priests is very hard to do. I've tried using [Catholic Hierarchy](http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/) but the results don't show whose consecrated who, and thus the link between them gets a bit iffy. Of course, what I'm asking for might be something that I still don't yet understand entirely, but any help is appreciated. :)