A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[everready]

In my personal devotions (today for example) I am finding myself more drawn to Mary than before. I don't really know why, but an Icon of Guadulape has touched me today, and never before has it done so.

Perhaps there is more to Mary than our Protestant brethren would have us believe, but I'm still feeling this out and am not ready to mentally ascent to much of what our Roman Catholic brethren are teaching now-a-days.

Your drawn to an icon? isn't that the same as a graven image or as Gods word puts it. You shall have no graven image before him?

Shalom,
In Christ,
Lee

 

[SpringTime]

This is a topic I am genuinely interested in, can you provide a source though please?

Ditto....

 

[JasonV]

Your drawn to an icon?

Of course! I love Icons, and have for a few years now.

..isn't that the same as a graven image or as Gods word puts it. You shall have no graven image before him?

Actually no, it's not.

 

[Rick Otto]

as long as it is properly redefined.

 

[JasonV]

as long as it is properly redefined.

I would say as long as it is properly understood, and not as misunderstood by people for centuries.

 

[Rick Otto]

Same thing.

 

[JasonV]

Same thing.

Actually no. I'm not redefining what was said, I'm saying God never said it in the first place.

A distinction with a difference.

 

[Rick Otto]

First recorded words of Satan,"Yea, hath God said...?"

 

[JasonV]

First recorded words of Satan,"Yea, hath God said...?"

I don't believe in "boogey-men". I also don't believe Genesis is a literal story.

 

[Rick Otto]

You don't have to, & it doesn't have to be, for my point to be valid.

 

[kepha31]

There are several sources on line listing the succession of popes. Anti-popes did not have legitimate succession, so those anti-popes did not contaminate the lineage. The official "list" does not include anti-popes. Only a legitimate Pope can succeed a previous legitimate Pope, regardless of how many anti-popes there were in between or during.

I don't even believe that Apostile Peter was the Bishop of Rome in the first place, I believe if any biblical figure was the bishop of Rome it was Simon Magus and I have very good grounds for that being the case.

If you have very good grounds, produce them, and name the author. If you can't, it's just another silly hateful charge and merits deletion.
Simon Magus:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13797b.htm

I don't even believe that Apostile Peter was the Bishop of Rome in the first place

So anybody, including one who has been sharply rebuked by Peter, was the bishop of Rome, but not Peter? That's quite a stretch.

 

[kepha31]

St. Peter's successors carried on his office, the importance of which grew with the growth of the Church. In 97 serious dissensions troubled the Church of Corinth. The Roman Bishop, Clement, unbidden, wrote an authoritative letter to restore peace. St. John was still living at Ephesus, yet neither he nor his interfered with Corinth. Before 117 St. Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church as the one which "presides over charity . . . which has never deceived any one, which has taught others." St. Irenæus (180-200) states the theory and practice of doctrinal unity as follows:

With this Church [of Rome] because of its more powerful principality, every Church must agree, that is the faithful everywhere, in this [i.e. in communion with the Roman Church] the tradition of the Apostles has ever been preserved by those on every side. (Adv. Haereses, III)​

The heretic Marcion, the Montanists from Phrygia, Praxeas from Asia, come to Rome to gain the countenance of its bishops; St. Victor, Bishop of Rome, threatens to excommunicate the Asian Churches; St. Stephen refuses to receive St. Cyprian's deputation, and separates himself from various Churches of the East; Fortunatus and Felix, deposed by Cyprian, have recourse to Rome; Basilides, deposed in Spain, betakes himself to Rome; the presbyters of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, complain of his doctrine to Dionysius, Bishop of Rome; the latter expostulates with him, and he explains. The fact is indisputable: the Bishops of Rome took over Peter's Chair and Peter's office of continuing the work of Christ [Duchesne, "The Roman Church before Constantine", Catholic Univ. Bulletin (October, 1904) X, 429-450]. To be in continuity with the Church founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary, for, as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors. Antioch, once the see and centre of St. Peter's labours, fell into the hands of Monophysite patriarchs under the Emperors Zeno and Anastasius at the end of the fifth century. The Church of Alexandria in Egypt was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, the mandatory of St. Peter. It flourished exceedingly until the Arian and Monophysite heresies took root among its people and gradually led to its extinction. The shortest-lived Apostolic Church is that of Jerusalem. In 130 the Holy City was destroyed by Hadrian, and a new town, Ælia Capitolina, erected on its site. The new Church of Ælia Capitolina was subjected to Caesarea; the very name of Jerusalem fell out of use till after the Council of Nice (325).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm
So much for the Jerusalem-as-centre theory.

 

[Rick Otto]

Peter-get-behind-me-satan earned a few of his infallible own.
And the wine of fornication is a spiteul concotion regardless of how intoxicating.
Get a life, not a religion.

 

[Albion]

St. Peter's successors carried on his office, the importance of which grew with the growth of the Church. In 97 serious dissensions troubled the Church of Corinth. The Roman Bishop, Clement, unbidden, wrote an authoritative letter to restore peace. St. John was still living at Ephesus, yet neither he nor his interfered with Corinth. Before 117 St. Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church as the one which "presides over charity . . . which has never deceived any one, which has taught others." St. Irenæus (180-200) states the theory and practice of doctrinal unity as follows:

With this Church [of Rome] because of its more powerful principality, every Church must agree, that is the faithful everywhere, in this [i.e. in communion with the Roman Church] the tradition of the Apostles has ever been preserved by those on every side. (Adv. Haereses, III) ​

The hereticMarcion, the Montanists from Phrygia, Praxeas from Asia, come to Rome to gain the countenance of its bishops; St. Victor, Bishop of Rome, threatens to excommunicate the Asian Churches; St. Stephen refuses to receive St. Cyprian's deputation, and separates himself from various Churches of the East; Fortunatus and Felix, deposed by Cyprian, have recourse to Rome; Basilides, deposed in Spain, betakes himself to Rome; the presbyters of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, complain of his doctrine to Dionysius, Bishop of Rome; the latter expostulates with him, and he explains. The fact is indisputable: the Bishops of Rome took over Peter's Chair and Peter's office of continuing the work of Christ [Duchesne, "The Roman Church before Constantine", Catholic Univ. Bulletin (October, 1904) X, 429-450]. To be in continuity with the Church founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary, for, as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors. Antioch, once the see and centre of St. Peter's labours, fell into the hands of Monophysitepatriarchs under the Emperors Zeno and Anastasius at the end of the fifth century. The Church of Alexandria in Egypt was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, the mandatory of St. Peter. It flourished exceedingly until the Arian and Monophysiteheresies took root among its people and gradually led to its extinction. The shortest-lived Apostolic Church is that of Jerusalem. In 130 the Holy City was destroyed by Hadrian, and a new town, Ælia Capitolina, erected on its site. The new Church of Ælia Capitolina was subjected to Caesarea; the very name of Jerusalem fell out of use till after the Council of Nice (325).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

So much for the Jerusalem-as-centre theory.

Not really. We all know that the See of Rome asserted itself gradually from the end of the Apostolic Age through the next thousand years, becoming the Papacy we all are familiar with. Its population, its history as the governmentals center of the Roman world, and its wealth relative to poorer diocese, all contributed to this Earthly success story.

The question really concerns what was believed by the FIRST CHRISTIANS, those who were closest to Christ and the Apostles.

It's also interesting to read, though, how what is original isn't supposed to matter, especially coming from one whose church makes so much out of claims of being first, the only one Christ had in mind, etc.

 

[kepha31]

Peter-get-behind-me-satan earned a few of his infallible own.
And the wine of fornication is a spiteul concotion regardless of how intoxicating.
Get a life, not a religion.

Sorry, Otto, but it is wrong to claim that Peter is making an infallible statement when he was rebuked by Jesus. You are forcing your own theology into the bible with this falsehood. Peter is not making any teaching whatsoever when he told Jesus not to go to Jerusalem. Jesus rebuked Peter to show how imortant His Messianic role was as the Savior of Humanity. Jesus says not only must He go, but anyone who is a true disciple must accompany Jesus by carrying their cross in their daily life. Catholics call this redemptive suffering, a concept foriegn to to many Protestants, a Catholic concept you hold in contempt.
Furthermore, Otto, Peter was not yet Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.

What you are implying with "wine of fornication" is pure anti-Catholic bigotry and historical revisionism, and you are pushing for a third deletion of your sick posts. "Mystery Babylon Religion" has poisoned your mind, and educated Protestants don't buy into that crap.

 

[kepha31]

Not really. We all know that the See of Rome asserted itself gradually from the end of the Apostolic Age through the next thousand years, becoming the Papacy we all are familiar with.

Can you define "asserted itself"? Does that mean dominating dictatorship? Is there any proof of this assertion you speak of?

Its population, its history as the governmentals center of the Roman world, and its wealth relative to poorer diocese, all contributed to this Earthly success story.

Have you forgotten the first 300 years of violent persecution? Otto thinks the Catholics collaborated with the Romans to kill the true believers. Too bad he's never heard of the Roman Catacombs where the "true believers" were buried after what was left of them after the lions had their dinner. http://www.catacombe.roma.it/welcome.html


What "wealth" would that be under the above circumstances? As for later expansion, what proof do you have that Rome did not support the newer diocese?

The question really concerns what was believed by the FIRST CHRISTIANS, those who were closest to Christ and the Apostles.

I couldn't agree more. I think that has been established by the meticulous documentation in my post. The problem is how the evidence is ignored or dismissed because it is contrary to human opinion, and the truth takes a back seat.

It's also interesting to read, though, how what is original isn't supposed to matter, especially coming from one whose church makes so much out of claims of being first, the only one Christ had in mind, etc.

OK. So the Bible has a translational error. It should read: "Thour art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my churches."

Here is a question for you. If Jesus is not the founder of the Catholic Church, who is? If it was Constantine, why is there so much evidence of Catholicism in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries, before the canon of the Bible and before Constantine was even born?

What is original doesn't matter in the light of dialogue and the desire for unity. Catholicism is not the monster that Otto thinks she is. And the Catholic church wouldn't have to make any claims at all if there weren't so many inventing false ones. The Baptist "Trail of Blood" pamphlet is a classic example. Apostolic Succession is constitutional for a church to be a true Church, and this has always been the case from the beginning. It is part of how we define ourselves as Church. We have a right to do this the same as you have a right to define what your church is. Ecclesial communites do not accept Apostolic Succession. They do not deny this. It is true. Somehow it's the Pope's fault they lack this because he pointed out a truth, yet at the same time the Pope says these same communities are sources of grace, truth, salvation, etc...that's what the media left out.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What you are implying with "wine of fornication" is pure anti-Catholic bigotry and historical revisionism, and you are pushing for a third deletion of your sick posts. "Mystery Babylon Religion" has poisoned your mind, and educated Protestants don't buy into that crap.

 

[Albion]

Can you define "asserted itself"?

Yes.

Does that mean dominating dictatorship?

I never said that.

Is there any proof of this assertion you speak of?

Oh yes, plenty.

Have you forgotten the first 300 years of violent persecution?

No. but that did not keep the Roman diocese from becoming influential, owing to its location, size, and wealth. Christians were persecuted throughout the Roman Empire, if you remember.

Otto thinks the Catholics collaborated with the Romans to kill the true believers.

Then Otto can speak for himself, and if you don't care for his views, ask him about them.

I couldn't agree more.

Great.

Here is a question for you. If Jesus is not the founder of the Catholic Church, who is?

Jesus is the founder of the Christian Church, not of any particular denomination.

If it was Constantine, why is there so much evidence of Catholicism in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries, before the canon of the Bible and before Constantine was even born?

You should probably ask someone who thinks Constantine founded the Christian Church...or the Roman Church.

What is original doesn't matter in the light of dialogue and the desire for unity.[

If that is your view, then it is. I believe in the Church that Christ founded to the exclusion of all errors ancient and modern.

The Baptist "Trail of Blood" pamphlet is a classic example. Apostolic Succession is constitutional for a church to be a true Church, and this has always been the case from the beginning. It is part of how we define ourselves as Church. We have a right to do this the same as you have a right to define what your church is.

I just finished replying to your shill, Jack the Catholic, who had written on another thread that he alone decides who can be called Catholic or be considered a Catholic. Do you support him in that? Only if you renounce that kind of provincialism would your statement about any of us having the right to define ourselves as we do have any meaning.

Ecclesial communites do not accept Apostolic Succession. They do not deny this.

What does that have to do with me?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I just finished replying to your shill, Jack the Catholic, who had written on another thread that he alone decides who can be called Catholic or be considered a Catholic. Do you support him in that? Only if you renounce that kind of provincialism would your statement about any of us having the right to define ourselves as we do have any meaning.

Shill??? You are being a bit presumptuous hey?

For the record I did not say that "I" decide who is Catholic or not.

The Catholic we are speaking of on the other thread is regarding the Catholic Church which goes back to Peter (Simon). This Church does not encompass all the Protestant churches we have or any church claiming Apostolic succession where it most likely no longer exists. As I stated in that thread the Eastern and Oriental orthodox churches are seen in communion with Rome and are considered Catholic still. But Protestant churches are not part of the Catholic church except maybe spiritually.

Do not mince words with what I said or put words in my mouth (so to speak). As I stated in the other thread, I am to understand that the Anglican church is not in communion with the Catholic Church and it's apostolic succession today cannot be considered valid.

No offense...

Shalom

 

[Rick Otto]

What you are implying with "wine of fornication" is pure anti-Catholic bigotry and historical revisionism, and you are pushing for a third deletion of your sick posts. "Mystery Babylon Religion" has poisoned your mind, and educated Protestants don't buy into that crap.

Actualy kepha, I think it is your own arrogance, & Anti-Protestant bigotry that drives your malicious accusations. It is my experience that Romans reflexively reach for power (the rules) when reason fails them.
Sophisticated words like "anti~", "bigotry", and "revisionism" give way to polemics like "poison" & "crap" so quickly that one's head almost spins on the double-take.
Maybe there's a good reason your on a third try at having my posts deleted.
I can find no such deletions on record. Substantiate your defamation.
What is "sick"?

Have you forgotten the first 300 years of violent persecution? Otto thinks the Catholics collaborated with the Romans to kill the true believers. Too bad he's never heard of the Roman Catacombs where the "true believers" were buried after what was left of them after the lions had their dinner.

Can you substantiate that lie, or are you using the same logic that created all the other pomp & circumstance that attends your religious affection?