A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

kepha31 · Sep 3, 2007

St. Peter 67
St. Linus 67-76
St. Anacletus 76-88
St. Clement I, 88-97
St. Evaristus 97-105
St. Alexander I, 105-115
St. Sixtus I, 115-125
St. Telesphorus 125-36
St. Hyginus 136-40
St. Pius I, 140-55
St. Anicetus 155-66
St. Soter 166-75
St. Eleuterius 175-89
St. Victor I, 189-99
St. Zephyrinus 199-217
St. Callistus I, 217-22
St. Urban I, 222-30

Yes. This is evidence. There is more detailed proof for each of these successors for anyone who wants it. Ranting and flaming is not proof to the contrary.

Gwenyfur · Sep 4, 2007

Respond to the
Topic not the Poster!!!

Each member is to be treated with respect and courtesy

Any further flaming, false accusations and other un Christ-like behavior will result in permanent closure of the thread!

Carry On

Rick Otto · Sep 4, 2007

kepha31 said:
Otto, ignoring the facts of history, which you must do, is not a refutation, it's stupidity. So far, you haven't got any proof to support your inventions, so you have to dismiss the evidence.

Unbroken lineage of the Chair of Peter has been established, and no one has brought forth any argument to oppose it, none with any intellectual rigor or even reliable documentation. Someone has presented the opinions of a few so called Protestant scholars whose diatribe is laced with polemics, and short on facts, as anyone can see.

The existence of this chair is an evidential "fact":

I'm not denying it's a list! LOL But according to any respectable standard of evidence, your definition of "intellectual rigor" or "reliable documentation", especialy considering the vatican's history of forgery, is up for grabs "as anyone can see".
Gotta give ya props for Authoritative Tone", tho.
You probably scare the pants off intellectual children.

freespiritchurch · Sep 4, 2007

kepha31 said:
Unbroken lineage of the Chair of Peter has been established, and no one has brought forth any argument to oppose it, none with any intellectual rigor or even reliable documentation.

I have to agree with you so far. There's a lot of flaming and precious little fact in this thread.

So here we go:

The list of Popes usually presented has some historically questionable points. It dates no earlier than 150 AD, and there are different lists with conflicting information.

The letters of Ignatius of Antioch are often used as proof that bishops were in place by 100 AD. But Ignatius' fierce polemic defending bishops shows that he was engaged in a conflict over the proper role of a bishop. Furthermore, Ignatius doesn't say anything about apostolic succession, but focuses more on his personal prophetic authority and gifts. At points, he claims prophetic authority to bolster his case, which strongly indicates that he's writing to people who believe that prophetic witness, not a church office, is the root of authority.

1 Clement also undermines the case for a papacy because it doesn't mention a pope. If everyone was looking to a single bishop of Rome for leadership, wouldn't that bishop have named himself in the letter? Instead, the letter is addressed from "the church in Rome," and all of the first-person references in the letter are plural--which would naturally indicate that it was written by a group, not an indivdual. The "bishops" who are described as the successors of the Apostles in Rome are a group, not an individual.

And in Alexandria, there are no reliable records of bishops until nearly 200 years after Christ. Although lists of bishops were constructed later, it appears that the church in Alexandria functioned without bishops for at least a century.

All this suggests that there was a variety of forms of church leadership in the first centuries: a single bishop, multiple bishops, teachers, and prophets were the primary leaders in different churches.

Albion · Sep 4, 2007

kepha31 said:
St. Peter 67
St. Linus 67-76
St. Anacletus 76-88
St. Clement I, 88-97
St. Evaristus 97-105
St. Alexander I, 105-115
St. Sixtus I, 115-125
St. Telesphorus 125-36
St. Hyginus 136-40
St. Pius I, 140-55
St. Anicetus 155-66
St. Soter 166-75
St. Eleuterius 175-89
St. Victor I, 189-99
St. Zephyrinus 199-217
St. Callistus I, 217-22
St. Urban I, 222-30

Yes. This is evidence.

This is a list of the probable bishops of Rome. It no more proves that any of these men thought of himself as a Pope or that anyone else thought that of them than if I listed the presidents of the USA and proclaimed that these are the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire. We can also show the unbroken lineage of other Apostles and of Peter in Antioch, not Rome, so this doesn't prove anthing about the Papacy in itself.

What is absolutely essential in any discussion of this sort is to not mix or confuse characteristics of these men. For example,

--to be bishop of Rome is not proof of being a Pope, even though one must be a bishop of Rome in order to be what the Roman Catholic Church considers to be its Pope.

--the honor bestowed on the successors of Peter does not equal having the power and responsibility claimed for the Pope.

--Apostolic Succession does not prove Papal claims, since there are successor bishops to all the Apostles.

JacktheCatholic · Sep 4, 2007

Rick Otto said:
I'm not denying it's a list! LOL But according to any respectable standard of evidence, your definition of "intellectual rigor" or "reliable documentation", especialy considering the vatican's history of forgery, is up for grabs "as anyone can see".

You imagine the Catholic Church has created fake epistles from the first 400 years of the Church from Christ and then made them so carbon dating and other proofs would show them as credible and historical?

The succession of Popes is simply the bishops of Rome that even the Eastern Church will admit to though they will deny the supremacy of the Pope of Rome.

There are facts out there that back this history that can be tested and used as historical fact. Such as letters from the Early Church Fathers.

JacktheCatholic · Sep 4, 2007

Albion said:
[/color][/size][/font]

This is a list of the probable bishops of Rome. It no more proves that any of these men thought of himself as a Pope or that anyone else thought that of them...

Why don't you try reading some of the previous pages before people started to use this thread for a ton of other BS.

There are many references and proofs already supplied. So why recreate the wheel?

JacktheCatholic · Sep 4, 2007

mrconstance said:
I have to agree with you so far. There's a lot of flaming and precious little fact in this thread.

So here we go:

The list of Popes usually presented has some historically questionable points. It dates no earlier than 150 AD, and there are different lists with conflicting information.

The letters of Ignatius of Antioch are often used as proof that bishops were in place by 100 AD. But Ignatius' fierce polemic defending bishops shows that he was engaged in a conflict over the proper role of a bishop. Furthermore, Ignatius doesn't say anything about apostolic succession, but focuses more on his personal prophetic authority and gifts. At points, he claims prophetic authority to bolster his case, which strongly indicates that he's writing to people who believe that prophetic witness, not a church office, is the root of authority.

1 Clement also undermines the case for a papacy because it doesn't mention a pope. If everyone was looking to a single bishop of Rome for leadership, wouldn't that bishop have named himself in the letter? Instead, the letter is addressed from "the church in Rome," and all of the first-person references in the letter are plural--which would naturally indicate that it was written by a group, not an indivdual. The "bishops" who are described as the successors of the Apostles in Rome are a group, not an individual.

And in Alexandria, there are no reliable records of bishops until nearly 200 years after Christ. Although lists of bishops were constructed later, it appears that the church in Alexandria functioned without bishops for at least a century.

All this suggests that there was a variety of forms of church leadership in the first centuries: a single bishop, multiple bishops, teachers, and prophets were the primary leaders in different churches.

Good points...

I think from scripture and these early epistles up to 150 AD we will see a tone of authproty and with Peter and Paul a special attention to their teachings.

simonthezealot · Sep 4, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
Good points...

I think from scripture and these early epistles up to 150 AD we will see a tone of authproty and with Peter and Paul a special attention to their teachings.

Hi friend, I see the month long debate we shared netted you some knowledge as well..

Albion · Sep 4, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
Why don't you try reading some of the previous pages before people started to use this thread for a ton of other BS.

There are many references and proofs already supplied. So why recreate the wheel?

I have read and there are no "proofs."

Thanks for your concern, but allegations don't create fact...and that was what I was showing you with the previous post, a very good example of how people think that something is "proof" of one thing when it actually is "proof," if that is the case, of something altogether different.

In this listing, the poster thinks that he's proven an unbroken line of ...what?...well, Popes, of course, except that there is nothing here but proof of "unbroken."

There is nothing at all involoved in showing that there is a line of Popes unless one can show that all these men were more than bishops of Rome. That has not been done.

Albion · Sep 4, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
The succession of Popes is simply the bishops of Rome that even the Eastern Church will admit to though they will deny the supremacy of the Pope of Rome.

Listen to what you are saying. The EO do not believe that there is in the Church the position or authority that your church claims for a Pope. Yet you show us that you know that the EO acknowledge a line of bishops of Rome. So what does this mean?

Obviously, it means that a line of bishops does not in itself make what is claimed as Papal authority, whether supremacy or infallibility. If you said, hypothetically, that this line proves that these men are gods or vegetarians, you'd still have to do more to prove it than merely list the time they spent as bishop of Rome.

There are facts out there that back this history that can be tested and used as historical fact. Such as letters from the Early Church Fathers.

Show us some of these letters, then, which you say are out there from the ECFs, that state without equivocation that the bishop of Rome is the sole head of the Church worldwide and infallible.

simonthezealot · Sep 4, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
You imagine the Catholic Church has created fake epistles from the first 400 years of the Church from Christ and then made them so carbon dating and other proofs would show them as credible and historical?

More than half the letters of ignatius plus the protoevangelium of James are shown to be spurious yet used as authentication of doctrines, his basis is not unfounded.

JacktheCatholic · Sep 4, 2007

simonthezealot said:
More than half the letters of ignatius plus the protoevangelium of James are shown to be spurious yet used as authentication of doctrines, his basis is not unfounded.

LOL!

Glad to see you here again. You make me think harder on these things. I will get back to your point.

JacktheCatholic · Sep 4, 2007

Albion said:
Listen to what you are saying. The EO do not believe that there is in the Church the position or authority that your church claims for a Pope. Yet you show us that you know that the EO acknowledge a line of bishops of Rome. So what does this mean?

Obviously, it means that a line of bishops does not in itself make what is claimed as Papal authority, whether supremacy or infallibility. If you said, hypothetically, that this line proves that these men are gods or vegetarians, you'd still have to do more to prove it than merely list the time they spent as bishop of Rome.

Show us some of these letters, then, which you say are out there from the ECFs, that state without equivocation that the bishop of Rome is the sole head of the Church worldwide and infallible.

My reference to EO teachings was only to add credibilty to the line of the bishops of Rome. It was not to show proof of a supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Though the EO will at times agree that there was or maybe is a primacy with the Bishop of Rome.

JacktheCatholic · Sep 4, 2007

simonthezealot said:
Hi friend, I see the month long debate we shared netted you some knowledge as well..

Yes...

You are always good at bringing a strong argument to the table.

By the way I do not recall ever dismissing Paul's importance. It was just that I was stressing the "Keys of the Kingdom" given to Peter.

Rick Otto · Sep 4, 2007

JacktheCatholic;You imagine the Catholic Church has created fake epistles from the first 400 years of the Church from Christ and then made them so carbon dating and other proofs would show them as credible and historical?

Calm down. I said documents, not epistles, but maybe you have something to come clean about?

Do you even consider what it is you write or is this some regurgitated fecal matter from some anti-Catholic site?

Dude, that is so above me, I don't deserve to answer it. I'm sure you gave it a whole lot of consideration before posting it!

The succession of Popes is simply the bishops of Rome that even the Eastern Church will admit to though they will deny the supremacy of the Pope of Rome.

Yeah, those EO's'll admit to all kinds of stuff, won't they? What gives with their denial of Popery anyway? Think they might be secretly jealous of pews?

There are facts out there that back this history that can be tested and used as historical fact. Such as letters from the Early Church Fathers.

Vatican tested facts from the Vatican version of history are truly "out there" - ya got that right! BTW, didja happen to notice we've already begun discussing those letters & that I've even cited a couple???

Gweny, as you close this thread, slam it down on Jack's lips. He seems to have no idea he has verbal diahrrea.

JacktheCatholic · Sep 4, 2007

Augustine of Hippo wrote a letter (#53) where he mentions the succession of Popes. This letter is from 400 AD.

More on Augustine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_hippo

Letter 53 Quote:
"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!" The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:—Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius."

Additional works by Augustine: http://www.augustinian.villanova.edu/AugustinianStudies/august5.htm

JacktheCatholic · Sep 4, 2007

If there is any question as to the Keys and Peter in so far as Peter's primacy (if not supremacy) then let Origen be heard.

Origen who lived from 185 AD to 254 AD and is a scholar and theologan of the Church.

More on Origen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen#Exegetical_writings

Quote from Origen's commentary on the Gospel of Matthew:
"Only, it seems to be indicated that the things, which above were granted to Peter alone, are here given to all who give the three admonitions to all that have sinned; so that, if they be not heard, they will bind on earth him who is judged to be as a Gentile and a publican, as such an one has been bound in heaven. But since it was necessary, even if something in common had been said in the case of Peter and those who had thrice admonished the brethren, that Peter should have some element superior to those who thrice admonished, in the case of Peter, this saying "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens," has been specially set before the words, "And what things soever you shall bind on earth," etc. And, indeed, if we were to attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would also find here, and in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter and those who have thrice admonished the brethren, a great difference and a pre-eminence in the things said to Peter, compared with the second class. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on the earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage, with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens. The better, therefore, is the binder, so much more blessed is he who has been loosed, so that in every part of the heavens his loosing has been accomplished."

JacktheCatholic · Sep 4, 2007

What about Pope Clement I who was the Bishop that first took the chair of Peter. What does he say regarding the succession of Bishops. About 80 AD, and John (the Apostle) was still around until 100 AD.

More on Pope Clement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I

His Letter to the Corinthians:

Quote 42:
he apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

Quote 44:
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

simonthezealot · Sep 4, 2007

ActionJack said:
Augustine of Hippo wrote a letter (#53) where he mentions the succession of Popes. This letter is from 400 AD.

More on Augustine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_hippo

Letter 53 Quote:
"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!" The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius."

Additional works by Augustine: http://www.augustinian.villanova.edu/AugustinianStudies/august5.htm

ActionJack said:
If there is any question as to the Keys and Peter in so far as Peter's primacy (if not supremacy) then let Origen be heard.

Origen who lived from 185 AD to 254 AD and is a scholar and theologan of the Church.

More on Origen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen#Exegetical_writings

Quote from Origen's commentary on the Gospel of Matthew:
"Only, it seems to be indicated that the things, which above were granted to Peter alone, are here given to all who give the three admonitions to all that have sinned; so that, if they be not heard, they will bind on earth him who is judged to be as a Gentile and a publican, as such an one has been bound in heaven. But since it was necessary, even if something in common had been said in the case of Peter and those who had thrice admonished the brethren, that Peter should have some element superior to those who thrice admonished, in the case of Peter, this saying "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens," has been specially set before the words, "And what things soever you shall bind on earth," etc. And, indeed, if we were to attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would also find here, and in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter and those who have thrice admonished the brethren, a great difference and a pre-eminence in the things said to Peter, compared with the second class. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on the earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage, with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens. The better, therefore, is the binder, so much more blessed is he who has been loosed, so that in every part of the heavens his loosing has been accomplished."

ActionJack said:
What about Pope Clement I who was the Bishop that first took the chair of Peter. What does he say regarding the succession of Bishops. About 80 AD, and John (the Apostle) was still around until 100 AD.

More on Pope Clement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I

His Letter to the Corinthians:

Quote 42:
he apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

Quote 44:
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

Jack couple things,
1st are you seeing something that isn't there on these posts? Highlight what you think makes your point I don't see it!
2nd Wikipedia is not really a credible link! you know that..It's worse than newadvent and scripturecatholic...Almost.

A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

Regular Member

Legend

The Dude Abides

Visiting after long absence

Facilitator

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

Facilitator

Facilitator

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

The Dude Abides

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency