Did scandals and early structures disprove apostolic succession?
Robert Sungenis holds that abuses do not nullify an office, just as David's sins did not cancel his kingship. He points to the succession of office in Acts 1:20 citing Psalm 109:8 and the same term used for the bishop's office in 1 Timothy 3:1, with the Fathers and the councils of Sardica, Ephesus and Chalcedon attesting episcopal succession and the primacy of Rome.
Some claim pornocracy/Avignon prove succession is a myth, or that Rome did not have a single bishop early on. Jerome allegedly said mono-episcopacy was man-made. How do you answer?
Answer
Abuses do not nullify office, just as David’s sins did not cancel his kingship. Scripture shows succession of office (Acts 1:20 citing Ps 109:8) and uses the same term for the bishop’s office (1 Tim 3:1). The Fathers and councils attest to episcopal succession and the primacy of Rome (e.g., Augustine, Jerome, Athanasius; Sardica canons; Ephesus; Chalcedon). Historical anomalies are exceptions, not the rule. The continuous line and magisterial practice witness to real succession.