A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[JacktheCatholic]

the squabbling over the Papal "throne." when there are two popes recorded in history, instead of one. RC picked one for their chain, for sure... but it isn't like it was hunky-dory single line succession.

It's easy to cobble together a list after the fact.

After the fact???

I think we can find that the Bishops of Rome have been recorded since the beginning. It is not like the Catholic church decided last year to compile a list of bishops that they liked and then say they are the line of Popes from Peter.

So, again I ask you, what determines someone to be an Anti-Pope?

Since the first they had to have a definition. How about referring to our buddy Cyprian?

 

[Uphill Battle]

After the fact???

I think we can find that the Bishops of Rome have been recorded since the beginning. It is not like the Catholic church decided last year to compile a list of bishops that they liked and then say they are the line of Popes from Peter.

So, again I ask you, what determines someone to be an Anti-Pope?

Since the first they had to have a definition. How about referring to our buddy Cyprian?

yes, after the fact.

list one has "links" in the chain that are not in list two, etc...

google anti-pope.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

yes, after the fact.

list one has "links" in the chain that are not in list two, etc...

google anti-pope.

Google anti-pope for my definition???

Because you can not provide one?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Google anti-pope for my definition???

Because you can not provide one?

heh, no.

the definition depends on your source. Google will give you a number of options to choose from.

were you unaware of the existance of Anti-Popes?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

heh, no.

the definition depends on your source. Google will give you a number of options to choose from.

were you unaware of the existance of Anti-Popes?

Since there are more than one definition then it is probably more imprtant that we have your definition to better understand your post.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Since there are more than one definition then it is probably more imprtant that we have your definition to better understand your post.

I don't have "my" definition.

the CC view Anti-pope as one who supposedly elevated themselves as pope, contrary to proper succession. A more moderate view is that "anti-pope" is simply the seconds of two popes who co-existed. The "chain" has included at one time or another one of the two popes, and then switched. And, apparently, some are still up for "scholarly debate."

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I don't have "my" definition.

the CC view Anti-pope as one who supposedly elevated themselves as pope, contrary to proper succession. A more moderate view is that "anti-pope" is simply the seconds of two popes who co-existed. The "chain" has included at one time or another one of the two popes, and then switched. And, apparently, some are still up for "scholarly debate."

Thanks for that simple definition.

Do you know the earliest "anti-pope" that is up for debate?

 

[Uphill Battle]

First one? I think St. Hippolytus.

I've only scratched the surface on it so far.

tell me, where you unaware of the claimed anti-popes?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

First one? I think St. Hippolytus.

I've only scratched the surface on it so far.

tell me, where you unaware of the claimed anti-popes?

Unaware? No

I have not studied it though. I have read some on them a while back. I think this would be good to discuss further if you care.

I am going to read about Hippolytus now and also try to understand what things have caused someone to be labeled "anti-pope".

 

[racer]

That is exactly what the Catholic Church is and does.

Actually, the RCC asserts a little more authority than that--without support.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Unaware? No

I have not studied it though. I have read some on them a while back. I think this would be good to discuss further if you care.

I am going to read about Hippolytus now and also try to understand what things have caused someone to be labeled "anti-pope".

cool. I'll drop back in later.

 

[racer]

EXACTLY!

You have validated the fact that you have nothing. So why make unfounded accusations?

Typical...

What, because I don't mention specific dates? Because, I don't assert that it was at any one specific time it ventured into error? It's not completely in error, but it doesn't (according to my opinion and belief) have everything exactly right, either. I don't think that any one church does.

 

[racer]

Good grief? Are you a Charlie Brown fan?

As a matter of fact, I am. Besides, other euphemisms do often come to mind, but they are usually filtered out and replaced with “washmymouthwashmymouthwashmymouth.”

When we speak of the pope or popes we speak of men. Man has sin and sin is evil. If we say an evil man is the anti-christ then someone can then conclude all men are the anti-christ since all men have sin. See the math?

Yes, I see the math. Yes, I understand that anti-Christ is used differently. But, I told you I was using the term in the manner of the “Beast.” I didn’t use those words, but I didn’t think I had to be so explicit when explaining my thoughts to you. Gee, you really have made a big to do over an aside comment.

The term "anti-christ" has been used in different ways both scripturally and historically.

Uh huh. I know this. You know, you might not grate on people so if you would quit conversing based upon your presumption that those with whom you are speaking are completely clueless to the teachings of Catholicism, Christianity and Scripture.

I think it better for us all that you do not dumb this down.

What am I dumbing down, and after you explain this to me, tell me how I’m dumbing anything down . . . .

 

[racer]

The Bible uses anti-christ in more than one fashion.

You said that already.

In Revelations we have one understanding.

And, I said that is the understanding to which I was referring. Really, Jack, you’re the only one in all my time on the MBs that has had a problem grasping such a simple and strait forward comment.

In the Gospel of John we have another.

Uhkayyyyy . . . . .

Or how about in Matthew, Mark and Luke where false prophets and false christs are the anti-chrtist.

Look, do you still not understand to which instance I was referring? Or do you just enjoy the concept of attempting to talk down to others?

Again, do not dumb it down.

I’m not dumbing anything down. There’s nothing here to dumb down.

Stop being redundant . . . . .

 

[racer]

I imagine Cyprian being pretty upset with the Pope when he wrote this. the Pope would not budge on this and it was not until the next Pope that things in Africa were cleared up.

But we cannot be sure of Cyprian's thinking here. Again, we should not to do necromancy.

But why do I say this when Cyprian so clearly states that no one is a bishop of bishops?

Well, assuming he means a Pope by "bishop of bishops" or that he is denouncing the Pope then I would submit his earlier writings:

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).


Cyprian seems pretty strong in his belief about the Chair of Peter in his letter about four years earlier.

Or how about his letter from 253 which was about two years earlier:

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the
Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).


Yet again Cyprian is rather strongly wording that the Bishop in the Chair of Peter has a special authority that the church needs to be unified.

Racer, what do you think happened and why do you think Cyprian wrote that there is no bishop of bishops in 255?

Jack,

I missed these posts. I'm probably not going to get to them today, though. Hopefully, tomorrow.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What, because I don't mention specific dates? Because, I don't assert that it was at any one specific time it ventured into error? It's not completely in error, but it doesn't (according to my opinion and belief) have everything exactly right, either. I don't think that any one church does.

I stand by the teaching that the Catholic Church has never errored in it's teachings and these teachings have never become corrupted.

You stated previously that the Catholic Church was led astray and the implication is that this corruption has corrupted the teachings of the Catholic church.

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

Some details...

Who, what and why?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Yes, I see the math. Yes, I understand that anti-Christ is used differently. But, I told you I was using the term in the manner of the “Beast.” I didn’t use those words, but I didn’t think I had to be so explicit when explaining my thoughts to you. Gee, you really have made a big to do over an aside comment.

Then I can confidently answer that there has never been a Pope that would fit this description of "anti-christ" or beast. And i do not think it possible for a Pope to ever be this "beast". Actually, I am not aware of anyone that would fit this with only a few exceptions like Hitler.

 

[racer]

What is your point?

What is my point. The quote says that Victor presided over the church at Rome—not over all churches. Then you have Ireneaus, a subordinate to Victor according to you, admonishing Victor. How much clearer can it be that being the pope over the church in Rome is not synonymous with being the pope over all of Christendom. Would you like me to post more quotes by other fathers?

That the Pope presides over the Church of Rome and other churches.

LOL, you added the words “other chuches.” The quote does not even imply what your are asserting.

If so, that is what I have been saying all along.

You know that’s not what I meant. You got my point.

Please be specific since I cannot read your mind. The Holy Spirit has not provided that Charism.

I am very specific. However, sometimes, I have sense enough to know that I can’t improve upon the clarity of the ECFs. I just let them speak for themselves.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack,

I missed these posts. I'm probably not going to get to them today, though. Hopefully, tomorrow.

Cool! (I used to watch Happy Days)

Cyprian is a good argument for what you choose to believe but I am confident I can show it is not conclusive and probably only helps to support the Pope.

 

[racer]

What do you mean by CHURCH?

The Anglican church?

The Pentecostal Church?

The church of Jesus Christ?

Ma and Pa's southern Baptist church?

What is your meaning of CHURCH in your statement???

I mean exactly what Jesus meant when He established HIS church--I refer to ALL of Christianity. My faith does not claim exclusivity.