A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[JacktheCatholic]

You know this statement makes no sense. Neither of these men, especially Von Dollinger are simply spouting their opinions. They both have/had done extensive research and study in Church history. I won’t say that White’s motives were completely non-biased, but Von Dollinger was a very devout Catholic. Yes, he was excommunicated, but he was still very devoted in his faith. He disagreed with the dogma of Papal Infallibility—with very good reason.

You are missing the Big Picture.

As a Catholic I do not suppose my intelligence or knowledge is anything. I like to be used by the Holy Spirit and have God work through me but I try not to ever think it is me when something good comes from my actions.

You see the "Pillar of Truth" is the Church (Timothy 3:15). That church is the One Church Jesus is building and has been protecting and guiding with the Spirit of Truth. You probably guessed it already... that church is the CATHOLIC CHURCH.

You see? I do not think I am smart or more knowledgable then you. You may have more knowledge packed away in your skull then I do and you may have a higher IQ as well. What you have not understood in ALL my posts is that the Catholic Church cannot ever be wrong in it's teachings since it is led by God and not even the gates of hell can stand against her.

You speak of fallible men and so do I. But when the Pope speaks from the seat of Peter the Holy Spirit will not allow anything false to leave the lips of the Pope. So, even if the Pope is an idiot or has false understandings he will never be able to teach them from the chair of Peter because the Holy Spirit is protecting the church teaching. If a priest or bishop is a wolf and gets people to pay him money for false indullgences then that priest is a wolf and a liar but he has not affected the teachings of the Catholic Church one iota. That is why we have doctrine and dogma in my opinion.

See?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I usually do not like going into a post with a dozen or more points and references to many links and such. To it seems better for all when we address one or two points at a time. But I will try...

Irenaeus said that the Roman church is the greatest church, and that all other churches must agree with the Roman church.

Smart guy this Ireneaus.

Because of a papacy?

Because of Peter the holder of the Keys.

No, but because of non-papal factors, such as the Roman church's location in the capital of the empire. Irenaeus viewed the Roman church as authoritative *not* because of any papacy, but because of practical factors such as the fact that Christians from around the world traveled to Rome, thereby making the Roman church representative of worldwide Christian consensus.

I am sure the Roman church had certian location benefits. And I would understand Ireneaus mentioning those benefits.

BUT that hardly conclusive that the location is the ONLY reason or even THE reason.

Seems like we are looking for what we want things to be and not being open to what actually is happening here.

Thus, the Roman primacy of Irenaeus was practical rather than jurisdictional. Since Rome is no longer the capital of a major empire, and many Roman bishops since Irenaeus' time have been unfaithful to apostolic teaching, Irenaeus' argument doesn't apply today as it did in the second century.

The Papacy is not based on men and their opinions or beliefs. It is simply the church that God gave us and Peter was the first Steward of God's Kingdom on earth.

I still see no cotradictions and rather I see a narrow view of what Ireneaus has said from you (and this source).

Not only does Irenaeus give non-papal reasons for the Roman church's importance, but he also suggests that the apostles, not just Peter, appointed Linus as bishop of Rome *while Peter was still alive*.

having more then one Bishop in an area is nothing new. But it is only One of the Bishops that has the Keys.

Peter made others Bishop as well. It was not until Peter was no longer the holder of the Keys that this power over the Kingdom would be passed on. Linus was one of the holders of the Keys. God Bless him.

After mentioning the Roman church, Irenaeus goes on to say that Christians can also turn to the churches of Smyrna and Ephesus for sound doctrine.

Sure.

The Bishop in Rome is the Steward of the Kingdom but not the only church. If it says the Catholic Church in Detroit Michigan is in full communion with Rome and it's teachings then you can trust to receive the correct teachings from the Detroit church as well.

I would even think the Catholic Church today would refer many of these lost Protestant churches to the EO church since the EO church maintains almost all the teachings of the Catholic Church.

BUT your claim is hardly evidence of anything except a possiblity that you choose to believe. This is why we Hold on to TRADITION.

When's the last time you heard a Catholic appeal to the authority and infallibility of Smyrna or Ephesus? They only follow the portions of Irenaeus that seem to support Roman Catholicism, while rejecting the rest.

Catholics are the authors of these letters and these letters were entrusted to Catholics. Seems to me the author would know his writings better than an outsider.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; we do this, I say, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate....But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried on earth a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time -- a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics....There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles." (Against Heresies, 3:3:2-4)

Yes... smart guy this Ireneaus.

You notice how it mentions APOSTOLIC TRADITION.

You know what is missing from Sola Scriptura?

You probably got this one right...

Answer: APOSTOLIC TRADITION

 

[racer]

You are missing the Big Picture.

Do you honestly think you are the first Catholic with which I have had this discussion?

As a Catholic I do not suppose my intelligence or knowledge is anything. I like to be used by the Holy Spirit and have God work through me but I try not to ever think it is me when something good comes from my actions.

Jack, ever last Christian—regardless of the church they attend—practices private interpretation. There is no way around it.

You see the "Pillar of Truth" is the Church (Timothy 3:15). That church is the One Church Jesus is building and has been protecting and guiding with the Spirit of Truth. You probably guessed it already... that church is the CATHOLIC CHURCH.

I didn’t guess—nor do I believe—that the Church of which I Tim speaks was the RCC. However, I didn’t have to guess that that is what you believe.

Exactly how do you know that I Tim 3:15 is speaking of the RCC? And how do you know that the way you define “Pillar and Ground of Truth” is the intended meaning?

You see? I do not think I am smart or more knowledgable then you. You may have more knowledge packed away in your skull then I do and you may have a higher IQ as well.

Everytime you call a comment absurd or ridiculous or assert that your argument is true and correct, you are asserting that you know more than do those not of your faith. You didn’t just gain this system of beliefs through osmosis. You have come to these beliefs through study and comprehension. You have determined what is true and correct based upon what you have inferred from history and Scripture. You didn’t gain these beliefs without exercising your intellect and thought process.

What you have not understood in ALL my posts is that the Catholic Church cannot ever be wrong in it's teachings since it is led by God and not even the gates of hell can stand against her.

How do you know this?

You speak of fallible men and so do I. But when the Pope speaks from the seat of Peter the Holy Spirit will not allow anything false to leave the lips of the Pope.

How do you know this?

So, even if the Pope is an idiot or has false understandings he will never be able to teach them from the chair of Peter because the Holy Spirit is protecting the church teaching.

Yes, and I have a very dear Catholic friend from these boards and others who said the Pope could even be the anti-Christ and still rule infallibly from the Chair of Peter. I disagree.

If a priest or bishop is a wolf and gets people to pay him money for false indullgences then that priest is a wolf and a liar but he has not affected the teachings of the Catholic Church one iota. That is why we have doctrine and dogma in my opinion.

I’m sorry but history show how the corruption of men have led the RCC astray.

See?

Like I said, you’re not the first RCC with which I’ve had this discussion.

 

[racer]

I usually do not like going into a post with a dozen or more points and references to many links and such. To it seems better for all when we address one or two points at a time. But I will try...

This is the way I keep myself from conveniently missing points made by others.

Smart guy this Ireneaus.

Admiration of others is admirable. But, I’m not sure what this has to do with our discussion. Is there a particular point you wish to make?

Because of Peter the holder of the Keys.

I’ve already quoted ECFs such as Augustine who clearly believed the keys were left to the Church—not Peter alone. Let me ask you this, what did possession of the keys enable Peter to do?

I am sure the Roman church had certian location benefits. And I would understand Ireneaus mentioning those benefits.

BUT that hardly conclusive that the location is the ONLY reason or even THE reason.

Reading Ireneaus in context, not just the bit you posted to enlighten us, one clearly sees that Ireneaus did not believe the Roman church superior to the others in a particularly authoritative manner.

Seems like we are looking for what we want things to be and not being open to what actually is happening here.

Well, some of us certainly have.

The Papacy is not based on men and their opinions or beliefs. It is simply the church that God gave us and Peter was the first Steward of God's Kingdom on earth.

Even if one did not disagree with this statement, it still does not substantiate your argument regarding the authority of Peter and his successors.

I still see no cotradictions and rather I see a narrow view of what Ireneaus has said from you (and this source).

My view was much wider than yours. It just put your view in it’s proper context.

having more then one Bishop in an area is nothing new. But it is only One of the Bishops that has the Keys.

I refer you to my question above, what power/authority does possession of the keys carry?

Peter made others Bishop as well. It was not until Peter was no longer the holder of the Keys that this power over the Kingdom would be passed on. Linus was one of the holders of the Keys. God Bless him.

Really? Have your read St. Clement? Peter and Paul made Linus the bishop of the church in Rome. Guess what—neither of them had to die in order for Linus to take up this position.

The Bishop in Rome is the Steward of the Kingdom but not the only church.

What is your evidence for this belief?

If it says the Catholic Church in Detroit Michigan is in full communion with Rome and it's teachings then you can trust to receive the correct teachings from the Detroit church as well.

Are you really going to ignore this quote? I know I posted it previously. From Engwer’s writings “Catholic but not Roman Catholic.”
5/18/02

Around the middle of the third century, dozens of North African bishops gathered together in a council to support a doctrine that was opposed by the bishop of Rome, among other people. In that context, Cyprian denied that there's any Pope:

"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." - The Seventh Council of Carthage (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm)

I would even think the Catholic Church today would refer many of these lost Protestant churches to the EO church since the EO church maintains almost all the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Huh?

BUT your claim is hardly evidence of anything except a possiblity that you choose to believe. This is why we Hold on to TRADITION.

I guess I need to point out that I was citing another author. I provided the link for your verification of the quotes.

Catholics are the authors of these letters and these letters were entrusted to Catholics. Seems to me the author would know his writings better than an outsider.

Hmmm . . . this is usually the standard reply when a Catholic can not refute a very explicit point made by a non-RC. Yet, in all seriousness you (and Trento) quote Protestant scholars in attempts to convince us “ignorant” lay Protestants that well known Protestant scholars are in agreement with Catholic teachings.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Do you honestly think you are the first Catholic with which I have had this discussion?

Nope... But how am I supposed to feel special now.

Jack, ever last Christian—regardless of the church they attend—practices private interpretation. There is no way around it.

If you look at Acts you will read where a Eunich is reading Isaih. This is a intelligent and knowledgable man and when asked about the scripture he says he needs someone to teach him.

Just as the Apostles needed Jesus to teach them and just as the disciple needed the Apostles to teach them.

See a trend? I hope so.

It is only with Protestant churches do we find things like Sola Scriptura. Guess what? That is NOT every Christian. And guess what else? That is something that has grown with self righteous people and the so-called age of reason where every man woman and child was taught by liberal protestants that anyone can pick up a bible and understand it.

I didn’t guess—nor do I believe—that the Church of which I Tim speaks was the RCC. However, I didn’t have to guess that that is what you believe.

Then what is the "Pillar of Truth"?

Or rather what is the CHURCH?

Exactly how do you know that I Tim 3:15 is speaking of the RCC? And how do you know that the way you define “Pillar and Ground of Truth” is the intended meaning?

There is no other church that was around since the Apostles (EO is part of the Catholic Church as is Oriental).

As to intended meaning... who told you that?

Everytime you call a comment absurd or ridiculous or assert that your argument is true and correct, you are asserting that you know more than do those not of your faith. You didn’t just gain this system of beliefs through osmosis. You have come to these beliefs through study and comprehension. You have determined what is true and correct based upon what you have inferred from history and Scripture. You didn’t gain these beliefs without exercising your intellect and thought process.

All I have ned to know is that God gave of the Catholic Church to guide us.

How do you know this?

If you did then you would be Catholic.

How do you know this?

The Catholic Church teaches it...

Yes, and I have a very dear Catholic friend from these boards and others who said the Pope could even be the anti-Christ and still rule infallibly from the Chair of Peter. I disagree.

Then they are not really Catholic, are they?

I’m sorry but history show how the corruption of men have led the RCC astray.

Show me where it started...

Like I said, you’re not the first RCC with which I’ve had this discussion.

That does not mean you understand. It also does not mean that some of these 'catholic' friends of yours are Catholic really.

Anyone can claim to be Catholic. I did for almost six years and I really was not.

 

[Rick Otto]

Jack will probably die Catholic.
Reason has already been laid to rest.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack will probably die Catholic.

Thanks!

I know you are not being complimentary. However to me this is a great end to this life... to die Catholic.

 

[racer]

Thanks!

I know you are not being complimentary. However to me this is a great end to this life... to die Catholic.

Jack,

There are a few "musts" if you are to survive in this jungle:

1. The ability to laugh at onesself.
2. The ability to appreciate others' slightly demented senses of humor.

And most importantly . . . .

3. Unusually thick skin.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack,

There are a few "musts" if you are to survive in this jungle:

1. The ability to laugh at onesself.
2. The ability to appreciate others' slightly demented senses of humor.

And most importantly . . . .

3. Unusually thick skin.

Thanks for your advise racer. I think you truly mean this and wish me to get along better with everyne.

The thick skin I have. Doing third party debt collections for 8 years does that to a person.

I usually have no problem laughing at myself. But when I speak about the Catholic Church I tend to be pretty serious.

Now... other people's sense of humor on a forum is tricky to catch sometimes. We do not have facial expressions and use of tone so I am victim of not cacthing a friendly jab versus a unfriendly jab. For that I apologize if I errored.

 

[racer]

Yes... smart guy this Ireneaus.

Again, is there a particular point you are attempting to make?

You notice how it mentions APOSTOLIC TRADITION.

Yes. So? That's not what the OP addressess.

You know what is missing from Sola Scriptura?

You're reading way too much into that statement. If you are interested in discussing Sola Scriptura by all means start a thread. It’s my favorite subject.

You probably got this one right...

Answer: APOSTOLIC TRADITION

Oh . . . can you remind me what the question was, then?

 

[A. believer]

Like I said, you’re not the first RCC with which I’ve had this discussion.

LOL That's an understatement. He's probably not even among the first 100 with whom you've had it or one's just like it.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Again, is there a particular point you are attempting to make?

And I thought my old age was making me senile. You make me feel better knowing that my memory is still pretty good.

Point is Ireneaus was making a solid point that ALL churches must recognize the Church of Rome as being authoritative. The 'why's you can continue to specualte on. Apostolic Tradition tells us the 'whys'.

But what did others have to say about Ireneaus and his letter about herecies? How about someone from that time and their view on Rome as well?

Eusebius of Caesarea

"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).


It was the Pope that would declare a church that is being heretical as being excommunicated. It did not say Smyrna threatened to excommunicate the church as your previous post claimed Smyrna had equal authority. It was Rome that makes these threats and NO other.

This letter also references Ireneaus and his letter.

These two letters together show further proof (when studied) that the Church of Rome holds the Authorioty over any other Church of Christ.

But I have posted this quote previously thinking our other intelligent and knowledgable people would have understood that with out explanation at length. And repeated explanation at that.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Oh . . . can you remind me what the question was, then?

Slouth is a capital sin... look for yourself.

 

[racer]

Slouth is a capital sin... look for yourself.

Oh, you don't remember either?

I guess that means it wasn't that important anyway . . . .

 

[racer]

Slouth is a capital sin... look for yourself.

I thought it was the "Seven Deadly Sins . . ."

I have heard of "Capital" murder, though.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Further proof that the Church in Rome was authoritive and no other church held that authority.

Racer your post about Rome being no more authoratative than Smyrna or others based on Ireneaus letters is so full of holes that I suppose that is why you stop addressing my posts rebutting your post.

Further insult to you and your claims:

Pope Julius I


"[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. ... Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. ... What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I’m sorry but history show how the corruption of men have led the RCC astray.

I will ask again since your memory is not so good...

When did this happen? Details.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

...and that's why you picture yourself as a cartoon character in knightly attire calling yourself "Jack the Catholic" I would guess?

You have a nice day now, "Sir Jack," and may all your crusades be fun.

The armor and shield and sword have to do with the weapons against evil. This comes from raising our children as Christians and teaching them the Truth.

I do not expect you to understand...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Oh, you don't remember either?

I guess that means it wasn't that important anyway . . . .

It is not important...

It is Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura ignores Apostolic Tradition.