A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[JacktheCatholic]

Okay, then what churches "at that time" doe you suppose were actually aware of this fact and when do you suppose it became apparent to "that/those" churches. Clearly, Peter wasn't aware of it.

Really? So, you just ignore all evidence contrary to what I give you?

Clearly Peter was not aware of it??? Is this a "Divine" revelation of your own?

You have no leg to stand on with "Clearly Peter wasn't aware of it". If you think you do then please show me...

Also, I have not ignored anything you have shown me. But when you show 'evidence' that proves nothing then it either needs more evidence or you should also consider the why it does not prove anything and consider the possibilities.

 

[racer]

Non RCs/EOs can only go so far in their interpretation because they lack the teaching authority that has kept the teachings since the Apostles.

LOL! I bet I can tell you exactly how far you can go . . . you can go so far as to determine that the RCC or the EOC is the one true church, then they check private interpretation at the door (or so they claim).

These groups also lack some of the teachings that have been preserved of the Apostolic Tradition. With Sola Scriptura you only have a fraction of the teachings that God gave us. Because you lack 100% of the teachings you cannot have 100% of the teachings.

So, maybe you're the one Catholic who can tell us what Apostolic teachings are missing from Scripture . . . can you? Can you tell us this?

 

[racer]

God gave you the "One True Church" so you could know him.

God gave us Jesus Christ--Himself in flesh and blood--and the Holy Spirit so that we may know Him.

Why only know him a little when you can know him much more? That is not iniquity, that is LOVE.

Because, as of yet, neither group has established that I'm missing out on anything. How do you presume to know that we are missing something?

 

[racer]

Here's an old post I made to someone else months ago:

I think there is even another explanation worthy of consideration here.
Others who have covered the topic explain how Peter was actually referred to as a small rock. These verses confirm what Jesus was saying:

1Pe 2:4; To whom coming, [as unto] a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, [and] precious,

1Pe 2:5; Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Look who is teaching here . . . none other that Peter, himself. What’s he teaching on? Could it be on what Christ taught to the twelve in Matt 16? As many argue, we as individual members together comprise Christ's church; as lively stones we build up His spiritual house.

Notice how Peter addresses himself at the beginning of this teaching:

1Pe 1:1; Peter, an apostle to Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

He refers to himself as an apostle of Jesus, not as the chief apostle, not even as first among equals. Peter, too, was a lively stone.

When Jesus spoke to Peter in Matt 16:18, it was to address Peter's response to the question Jesus had just asked of all twelve, "who do ye say that I am." He spoke directly to Peter in this instance, because it was Peter who stepped forward and answered Jesus' question. We, who have all been students at some point in our lives, can envision how this occurred.

Remember sitting in the class room, the teacher is lecturing on a subject and asks the whole class a question. Usually, one student responds, and when this student does so, then teacher then invariably (if just for a moment) focuses his attention on that student and his response.

This is what happens with Jesus and Peter here, Peter steps forward like an enthusiastic student who wants to impress his teacher. So, for just a moment Jesus’ attention is on Peter. “Yes,” Jesus responds to Peter, Matt 16:17; And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Matt 16:18; And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church . . . . .

In essence He’s saying, thou are a rock/pebble/stone . . . . then, he continues “upon this rock,” we can infer that the second rock referenced is not Peter by the usage of the word “this.” This rock is arguably Peter’s declaration of Jesus’ identity, or you know we’re missing possible hand gestures Jesus may have been making. He could have point to Himself, he could have passed his hand over all twelve of the apostles, or made a wide, sweeping hand gesture encompassing the earth . . . we just were not there to know.

 

[racer]

Gregory I was giving John some jurisdiction in John's region.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15401a.htm

In the early church the Pope would have a vicar of the Apostolic See.

Jack, we all know that New Advent is going to define what is taught by the RCC. I'm sorry, it has yet to persuade me, and it's not likely to anytime in this century.

 

[racer]

Gregory I was giving John some jurisdiction in John's region.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15401a.htm

In the early church the Pope would have a vicar of the Apostolic See.

From New Advent on "Apostolic See" not "Vicar:"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01640c.htm

The Apostolic See

(Soles apostolica, cathedra apostolica).

This is a metaphorical term, used, as happens in all languages, to express the abstract notion of authority by the concrete name of the place in which it is exercised. Such phrases have the double advantage of supplying a convenient sense-image for an idea purely intellectual and of exactly defining the nature of the authority by the addition of a single adjective. An Apostolicsee is any see founded by an Apostle and having the authority of its founder;the Apostolic See is the seat of authority in the Roman Church, continuing the Apostolic functions of Peter, the chief of the Apostles.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So, maybe you're the one Catholic who can tell us what Apostolic teachings are missing from Scripture . . . can you? Can you tell us this?

How about Mary being the new Eve?

Or the Assumption of Mary?

And let us not forget Mary's perpetual virginity. That means Jesus had no half brothers or sisters from Joseph and Mary.

Then we have many areas in scripture that Catholics and EO have understood since the beginning and enforced by oral Apostolic Tradition like purgatory and the real flesh of Christ in the Eucharist.

Shall I go on.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Because, as of yet, neither group has established that I'm missing out on anything. How do you presume to know that we are missing something?

You are missing probably the greatest gift one can receive daily while on earth. The Eucharist.

The Eucharist in the only form possible as presented by a priest that has a charismatic gift that goes back to the Apostles and allows Christ to transform a whaet wafer intead his flesh and blood. This miracle brings a Christian back to Christ and his Sacrifice for us all. This final Sacrifice to be recalled always until the end of time. The same Bread that John chapter 6 attests to and the same Bread that Jesus broke at the Last Supper. To be Catholic or of the EO or Oriental church means to share in the Sacrifice. The same Sacrifice where John 6 tells us that if we want to live forever we must eat of.

Wow! I would say that This is something you are missing.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

From New Advent on "Apostolic See" not "Vicar:"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01640c.htm

The Apostolic See

(Soles apostolica, cathedra apostolica).

This is a metaphorical term, used, as happens in all languages, to express the abstract notion of authority by the concrete name of the place in which it is exercised. Such phrases have the double advantage of supplying a convenient sense-image for an idea purely intellectual and of exactly defining the nature of the authority by the addition of a single adjective. An Apostolicsee is any see founded by an Apostle and having the authority of its founder;the Apostolic See is the seat of authority in the Roman Church, continuing the Apostolic functions of Peter, the chief of the Apostles.

Your point here is not clear to me...

I understand what an Apostolic See is. I also explained and gave a link to what a "vicar" is and how it works in relationship to the Apostolic See.

You may need to explain your point to me? Otherwise it appears (to me) that you agree with what I previously stated.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I think there is even another explanation worthy of consideration here.
Others who have covered the topic explain how Peter was actually referred to as a small rock.

The references we have of Peter being a 'small' rock come from the Greek translation. It is because a large rock in Greek is feminine that there is confusion with many that read the Greek with out the Apostolic Tradition to go with it.

You see the Greek form of Rock in masculine was normally used as a small rock but it could be used as a large rock. When this text was translated to Greek the writer has a choice of the feminine for Peter or masculine. If was decided to use masculine since feminine would not be used for a man or a priest.

But consider also that Jesus would have spoken in Aramaic when he said this. In Aramaic there is but one word for Rock and that is "Kepa". I used this in a previous post too if you recall. So if we are going to translate this as it ought to be then when Jesus said he is going to build his Church on a "Kepa" and called Simon "Kepa" then there is no "little rock" involved since Kepa is Kepa.

That is the teaching of the Church for 20 centuries.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

In essence He’s saying, thou are a rock/pebble/stone . . . . then, he continues “upon this rock,” we can infer that the second rock referenced is not Peter by the usage of the word “this.” This rock is arguably Peter’s declaration of Jesus’ identity, or you know we’re missing possible hand gestures Jesus may have been making. He could have point to Himself, he could have passed his hand over all twelve of the apostles, or made a wide, sweeping hand gesture encompassing the earth . . . we just were not there to know.

Interesting. And I presume persuasive to some. But this interpretation dismisses the oral Apostolic Tradition.

So it seems you are missing more then the Eucharist.

 

[racer]

Gregory I does not hold the title of universal...

Again, from New Advent:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm

Vicar of Christ

(Latin Vicarius Christi).
A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19.

In the course of the ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, as Vicar of St. Peter and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. Thus, Innocent IIIappeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ (cap. "Inter corporalia", 2, "De trans. ep."). He also declares that Christ has given such power only to His VicarPeter and his successors (cap. "Quanto", 3, ibid.), and states that it is the Roman Pontiff who is "the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ" (cap. "Licet", 4, ibid.). The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. "Fundamenta ejus", 17, "De elect.", in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ.

Christ is on a level no man can ever hope to attain. The Catholic Church does not place anyone so high.

No argument here. But, what is your evidence that John the Faster desired to be called by a title which put him on an even keel with Jesus? Back to what Gregory said:

. . . saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lord's Body, were constituted as members of the Church, and not one of them has wished himself to be called universal.


Well, according to the quote I provided from New Advent, the Pope, the Vicar of Christ is considered the "universal" leader of the Church. Again, Gregory said:

. . . What then, dearest brother, will you say in that terrible scrutiny of the coming judgment, if thou covetest to be called in the world not only father, but even general father?


I don't think coveting the title of "General Father," is any different than aspiring to be the "Vicar of Christ."

Yes we do. In the sense that we here on earth in the material sense have been left an advisor on the teachings of the morals and Faith.

But, you just said above that Gregory did not have the title of "universal."

But in the spiritual sense of our eternal souls the church has Jesus as head of the Church.

What is your evidence that John the Faster had something more lofty in mind?

But as for a Head of the household of God here on earth? Jesus left us the Spirit of Truth to help those he left in charge. Jesus left men in charge of his church until he returns. That is why we have bishops.

You have no evidence that that steward was Peter alone. He left His Gospel and teachings with men for the purposes of preserving, teaching, and passing on. He did not leave them with the authority to define what He taught. There is a difference.

But Jesus also knew we would ne someone to act as the "head" until he returned so he appointed a steward and that was Peter. So started the "seat of Peter".

He didn't need "one man" to lead His Church. That's why the Holy Spirit was sent.

Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Jhn 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
Jhn 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Yes. As I stated above. In a very real sense Jesus is the only "head" of the church. But Jesus left a steward to guide his people on earth until he returned. But Jesus us still the King of kings and Lord of Lords and the Head.

Where is your evidence? I mean evidence other than your faith's interpretation which is made based upon your faiths claim to the authority to interpret. The RCC claims aurthority to interpret based solely upon it's interpretation of Matt 16:18 and 1 Tim 3:15. Sounds a little shady to me.

Yes "universal" as to any one man. Only the Church is Universal. After all it is the bride of Christ and so it is Christ in Spirit.

It's self-contradictions or convoluted answers like this one that make me want to resort to the euphemisms that get edited out and replaced with "washmymouthwashmymouth." I refer you back to New Advent's definition of "Vicar of Christ" above.

And what does Gregory I mean by "general father"?

Actually, I think that I asked you first. In fact, you just answered that question with the same question.

"I," personally think same as Pope or Vicar of Christ. If you think something different, you're going to have to show some type of evidence or support.

 

[racer]

Here’s something I caught after reading this letter to John the Faster again:

Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of this Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve, had the honour offered them of being called universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren.

I find this interesting. Gregory specifically speaks of the Apostolic See of Rome and says that not even the Bishop of that See desired to hold such a title.

What, then, can we bishops say for ourselves, who have received a place of honour from the humility of our Redeemer, and yet imitate the pride of the enemy himself?

Look here, Gregory—like Peter—merely refers to himself as one of the bishops. He doesn’t consider himself to be a “chief bishop.”

Let us recall to

mind, most dear brother, this which is said by the most wise Solomon. Before thunder shall go lightning, and before ruin shall the heart be exalted ; where, on the other hand it is subjoined, Before glory it shall be humbled. Let us then be humbled in mind, if we are striving to attain to real loftiness. By no means let the eyes of our heart be darkened by the smoke of elation, which the more it rises the more rapidly vanishes away. Let us consider how we are admonished by the precepts of our Redeemer, who says, Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven . Hence, also, he says by the prophet, On whom shall my Spirit rest, but on him that is humble, and quiet, and that trembles at my words ? Of a truth, when the Lord would bring back the hearts of His disciples, still beset with infirmity, to the way of humility, He said, Whosoever will be chief

among you shall be least of all . Whereby it is plainly seen how he is truly exalted on high who in his thoughts is humbled. Let us, therefore, fear to be numbered among those who seek the first seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the market, and to be called of men Rabbi. For, contrariwise, the Lord says to His disciples, But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your master; and all you are brethren. And call no man your Father upon the earth, for one is your Father

Here’s where your argument is squashed. Gregory quotes Jesus chastising them for seeking primacy “among themselves,” not for seeking equality with Him.

 

[racer]

How about Mary being the new Eve?

Or the Assumption of Mary?

And let us not forget Mary's perpetual virginity. That means Jesus had no half brothers or sisters from Joseph and Mary.

So, you admit that all of these teachings are non-Biblical and have no basis in Scripture, that these are teachings found only in Historical texts?

Then we have many areas in scripture that Catholics and EO have understood since the beginning and enforced by oral Apostolic Tradition like purgatory and the real flesh of Christ in the Eucharist.

Enforced by some in the early stages of the church, but as I've shown definitely not all.

Shall I go on.

Sure, it's refreshing to meet an RC who admits that certain Catholic teachings are not biblically based.

 

[racer]

You are missing probably the greatest gift one can receive daily while on earth. The Eucharist.

I am filled with the Holy Spirit and He with me. I don't have to do this once a week or once a month to be possessed or filled by Him. We partake of communion in His memory as He directed, but that's not what fills us with His spirit. Yes, it is a warm and reverant occasion, but I feel His presence everyday. I know Him, I speak directly to Him . . . how can you presume to assert I'm missing a thing?

The Eucharist in the only form possible as presented by a priest that has a charismatic gift that goes back to the Apostles and allows Christ to transform a whaet wafer intead his flesh and blood. This miracle brings a Christian back to Christ and his Sacrifice for us all. This final Sacrifice to be recalled always until the end of time. The same Bread that John chapter 6 attests to and the same Bread that Jesus broke at the Last Supper. To be Catholic or of the EO or Oriental church means to share in the Sacrifice. The same Sacrifice where John 6 tells us that if we want to live forever we must eat of.

Jack, you have to stop talking to me like I've never talked to another Catholic and I know nothing about what your faith teaches. It's patronizing and condescending. I know what the Eucharist is according to RCism. I only asked you what it is you think I'm missing. The Real Presence is another topic for another thread. Feel free to start a new thread on it if you like. I will gladly participate.

Wow! I would say that This is something you are missing.

And, I would say, come to my church and see what you are missing.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So, you admit that all of these teachings are non-Biblical and have no basis in Scripture, that these are teachings found only in Historical texts?

Enforced by some in the early stages of the church, but as I've shown definitely not all.

Sure, it's refreshing to meet an RC who admits that certain Catholic teachings are not biblically based.

Scripture is and came from Apostolic Tradition... Apostolic Tradition is all divinely inspired and inerrant.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack, you have to stop talking to me like I've never talked to another Catholic and I know nothing about what your faith teaches. It's patronizing and condescending.

I was not patronizing or being condescending...

I was so filled with joy at being part of the Catholic Church and being able to take part in the Eucharist.

If anything I am sorry for you for not having the Eucharist.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

And, I would say, come to my church and see what you are missing.

I have a buddy who is at an Apostolic Church which is part of the Pentecostal church. He is a 'fallen' Catholic and has tried quite a bit to convert me.

I have also read up some on the Pentecostal church. I tried to explain to him that the Pentecostal church teaches that you can validly baptize in the trinity as Jesus said in Matthew. He will argue that the ONLY valid baptism is "in the name of Jesus" and that if you baptise in "the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" that it is INVALID.

He also believes that speaking in tongues is proof that he is saved.

Naw... I see error there and grave error. I trust in the Lord Jesus Christ to protect those the Father has delivered to him. I am nothing in comparison and can do nothing without God. I am in the Church that Jesus started and it is here that the teachings must come from.

I do not see a written word as being authoratative since it is inanimate. The Scriptures are divinely inspired word of God and inerrant but they cannot be authorative. The Church is authorative and the Pope and Bishops are authorative and they are servants to the people, the church and God.

God is the Authority of all matters of the Catholic Church and through his appointed representatives in the Pope and bishops and others God leads us and guides us.

My buddy believes that interpretation of the Bible is never wrong if you have the Holy Spirit. He actually believes the Holy Spirit talks to him and tells him his interpretations and that these interpretations NEVER contradict another person with the Holy Spirit interpretting the Bible. BUT if you say his interpretation is wrong then you either do not have the Holy Spirit or demons are misleading you.

That is what happens when the Bible is seen as authoratative...

Man must have teachers for scripture and these teachers must have learned from Jesus' teachings. To have this then you must have a church that is like the church that Jesus started. So what church most resembles the Church of the first century?

 

[racer]

The references we have of Peter being a 'small' rock come from the Greek translation. It is because a large rock in Greek is feminine that there is confusion with many that read the Greek with out the Apostolic Tradition to go with it.

Yes, I've heard that argument, too. But, if fails just as the others do.

You see the Greek form of Rock in masculine was normally used as a small rock but it could be used as a large rock. When this text was translated to Greek the writer has a choice of the feminine for Peter or masculine. If was decided to use masculine since feminine would not be used for a man or a priest.

But consider also that Jesus would have spoken in Aramaic when he said this. In Aramaic there is but one word for Rock and that is "Kepa". I used this in a previous post too if you recall. So if we are going to translate this as it ought to be then when Jesus said he is going to build his Church on a "Kepa" and called Simon "Kepa" then there is no "little rock" involved since Kepa is Kepa.

Jack, this is not Catechism 101. I've heard all of this before. I specifically quoted to you what Peter taught. Peter did not refer to Himself as a Big Rock. He considered Himself among the smaller rocks which compose the Body of Christ.

That is the teaching of the Church for 20 centuries.

You want to know something interesting.
Let's go back to Posts #488 and #490:

From Post #488:

. . . ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? (Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).

Here you have Origen and Augustine making basically the same argument in almost exact words. "Rock/Rocky are surnames because all who confess Jesus is Lord are rocks/Rockys.

Post 490 From the same link above:

. . . But that is precisely what Augustine does, although he leaves us in no doubt as to what he, as a leading bishop and theologian of the Church, personally believes. And his view was not a novel interpretation, come to at the end of his life, but his consistent teaching throughout his ministry. Nor was it an interpretation that ran counter to the prevailing opinion of his day. The following quotation is representative of the overall view espoused by this great teacher and theologian:

And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession . . . (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

You can not argue that this teaching was unchallenged for twenty centuries. Well, I guess you can . . . but you're wrong.

 

[racer]

Look at Arius at the time of Constaninople. Yes.

Case-in-point:

From another post I made:

Did you actually read this? Notice what was said, “Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over THE church at Rome . . . Do the implications of that statement penetrate your common sense at all? He wanted to do this, but the other churches would not allow it. Did you miss this comment:

[Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom"

So, tell me was Irenaeus excommunicated?