A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[Albion]

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.

Agree. Somewhere along the way in this thread, the topic changed (for some posters) from "Is there a line of bishops?" to "Is there a line of Popes?" I agree that the line of bishops of Rome is essentially established, but of course that doesn't make them Popes--which I hope you agree is correct.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Agree. Somewhere along the way in this thread, the topic changed (for some posters) from "Is there a line of bishops?" to "Is there a line of Popes?" I agree that the line of bishops of Rome is essentially established, but of course that doesn't make them Popes--which I hope you agree is correct.

That my friend is the contention between East and West.

I have seen where the "Keys" to the Kingdom given Peter and his 'seat' a supreme authority over the other Bishops based on similiar powers given to the holder of the Key of the House of David.

That is where Simon and I left off long ago...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

This quote shows two things. First is shows that there was recognized and recorded a line of Bishops in Rome and that the church felt it important to keep track of a line of Bishops to Peter who they placed a special authority in.

Secondly it shows that Peter was of prime importance to Jesus in starting his church and that Peter is the only Apostle we know of where Jesus gave a special name as though as a title, "Cephus". No record of any having been called Cephus before and in direct relationship to Peter being the first of all the Apostles. Being the first also shows a Primacy.

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

 

[Albion]

That my friend is the contention between East and West.

It's really the difference between the Church of Rome and every other Christian church.

I have seen where the "Keys" to the Kingdom given Peter and his 'seat' a supreme authority over the other Bishops based on similiar powers given to the holder of the Key of the House of David. That is where Simon and I left off long ago...

Right. That's not so easily decided. But at least we can agree that listing bishops does not--in itself--a case for the Papacy make.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

History has argued who was the next Bishop of Rome after Peter and in general it is agreed that Clement was the 2nd Bishop of Rome. Rome being the last place for Peter and his leadership.

Clement would have been the next to receive the charismatic gifts that Peter had that were not only similiar to the other Apsotles but also the "Keys" to Jesus Kingdom on both Earth and Heaven.

Look also at these two portions of the letter. They show that Jesus placed a hierarchu in place for his Church and the Apostles were to be the first Bishops and then they were to continue this through a dynastic fashion. They appointed not only replacements for themselves but for Bishops to work under them as well as Deacons.

This is what happened with Peter, he handed his office to Clement.

Also we can look at the date of this document as having been around when John was still alive and no mention is ever made against this letter in that time.

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.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It's really the difference between the Church of Rome and every other Christian church.

I see you are Anglican. I looked to see what your Faith is.

King Henry VIII was well aware of the importance of Bishops that trace their roots back to the Apostles. I am certain he did not go against Rome easily. I am certain excommunication from Rome was a huge thing for King Henry VIII.

So, I know that the Anglican church truly desires a church with Apostolic succession. For many decades the Anglican church tried to keep their Bishops in communion with Rome.

Unfortunatley they have many gaps and some gaps they are not sure if the connection still existed.

I am sure there are many similiarities between the Anglican church and the Catholic Church (East and West) but this does not count for many churches or "every other Christian church".

I say this because many of the 30,000 plus denominations that we have today do not have valid orders or sacraments except for maybe baptism and marriage. These thousands of churches believe in their own intellect as the true guiding force. Or maybe they believe the Holy Spirit is guiding their church and none of these other thousands of churches they differ from.

Point is that most churches do not recognize or are ignorant to Apostolic lines. The Anglican church is quite aware of it and have a pretty good understanding of it's importance.

Right. That's not so easily decided. But at least we can agree that listing bishops does not--in itself--a case for the Papacy make.

Agreed.

 

[Albion]

This quote shows two things. First is shows that there was recognized and recorded a line of Bishops in Rome and that the church felt it important to keep track of a line of Bishops to Peter who they placed a special authority in.

You're way overstating the significance there IMO. We are frequently treated to the list of bishops of Rome because someone wants to make a case for the Papacy, but there are equally clear and unbroken lines of succession existing for other Apostles. Most people merely aren't interested in checking them out because they don't contest the Apostolic Succession and there are no claims to anything else hanging on these lines.

Secondly it shows that Peter was of prime importance to Jesus in starting his church

Yes, but you make a mistake in assuming that the "starting his church" means what you have in mind--institutional, bureaucratic, organizational, hierarchical, administrative church work. It more likely means that Jesus was counting on Peter--or assigning to Peter the job--for recruiting the first mass of followers, which was done by him on Pentecost as we all know. To "build" one's church HAS TO include having members! It's even more fundamental than any polity.

and that Peter is the only Apostle we know of where Jesus gave a special name as though as a title, "Cephus". No record of any having been called Cephus before and in direct relationship to Peter being the first of all the Apostles. Being the first also shows a Primacy.

That's quite a non-sequitur. Peter was one of Jesus' top men. We all know this. His name made possible several allusions or even joking, that's all.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

This whole quote addresses Peter as being an authority with more power than the other Apostles. This shows a primacy and supremacy in regards to Peter and so to with his successors since those same Charisms are passed on in a dynastic fashion.

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."

 

[Albion]

This whole quote addresses Peter as being an authority with more power than the other Apostles. This shows a primacy and supremacy in regards to Peter and so to with his successors since those same Charisms are passed on in a dynastic fashion.

So what? Origen wrote a century after the Apostolic Age closed and was an controversial thinker whose views were championed by Arians. At best, this is one man's personal opinion established much too late to tell us anything about what the bishop of Rome was supposed to be or not to be.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So what? Origen wrote a century after the Apostolic Age closed and was an controversial thinker whose views were championed by Arians. At best, this is one man's personal opinion established much too late to tell us anything about what the bishop of Rome was supposed to be or not to be.

I can see some logic in your claims and how some one could take the stance that you are.

But this is but one author and one letter.

What about the others?

 

[Albion]

I can see some logic in your claims and how some one could take the stance that you are.

But this is but one author and one letter.

What about the others?

Exactly. I don't personally put the ECFs on the level of infallibility, even if every last one agreed on anything. But being a good Anglican, I do appreciate the weight of Tradition as showing us the mind of the Church through time. The problem is that the ECFs are Far, Far from agreeing to anything on this particular issue.

I was involved in a discussion like this one a couple of years ago and did some research into that matter. What I found were a number of Fathers who said James was the head of the church (of course, a headship only of honor), others who said it was Peter and Paul jointly. Then we have Cyprian who said first one thing, then the opposite depending upon how he was getting along with the Bishop of Rome. Some even said all three of these were the joint leadership of the Church. And of course there were some who emphasized Peter. These in the latter camp tend to be from the later years when the bishops of Rome were already claiming something for themselves and can be presumed to have influenced some of the Church's thinkers to agree.

So there's no case at all to be made for the Papacy if we base it upon the ECFs. There's no consensus at all. Naturally, when a Catholic selects out the ECFs who say just what is being looked for, he often tries to make that case. Really, however, it can't be done.

This is not to say that one can't approach the issue from some other angle, but this isn't one that will work.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

For the moment let us set the ECF letters aside.


Now let us look at the Keys to the Kingdom. We know Jesus gave his Keys to the Kingdom to Peter. We cannot say that these Keys were given to anyone else with certainty because they are mentioned once and that is with Peter alone.

Now let us consider a possible meaning for the "Keys".

What I propose is that we look at Isaias 22:22. In this passage we have almost identical text to that in Matthew where the Keys are given to Peter. In Isaias the Key of the House of David is given to one person and the Key is given to show that this one man has the powers of the King. This person is a Minister of the kingdom and with the Key to the House of David he has the authority of the King. For the Lord of the Rings fans we see this with the "Return of the King" where another is placed in charge of the Kingdom until the King returns. Any wonder why we see similiarities in the Lord of the Rings as to scripture?

So, we can see the possibility that the Key in the House of David gives that man the authority of the King. Before receiving the Key the minister would be as other ministers that are judges over the people and law makers. They bind and loose. But when one minister is given the Key he becomes the authority because of the King until the King returns.

NOW follow me in my thinking and ask yourself is it POSSIBLE.


Jesus gave Peter his Keys to the Kingdom. These Keys may have given Peter an authority that is equal to that of the King (or Christos). This is an authority given by the King and entrusted. Like the ministers of a Kingdom these Apostles have the powers to Bind and Loose but since Peter holds the Keys he has the Authority of the King until the King returns.

We know Jesus is in Heaven and seated at the right hand of the Father. Jesus could be said to have left Peter the Keys to the Kingdom so Peter could rule in Jesus' place here because Jesus entrusted that to his lead Apostle. Of course when Jesus returns he will take his Keys back.

But also consider that the Keys are dynastic as with the House of David so that when one Bishop leaves another takes his place. Same is true for Peter that when Peter no longer holds that office another takes his seat and holds the Keys and their represented authority until Jesus returns.

 

[everready]

You say,
What I propose is that we look at Isaias 22:22. In this passage we have almost identical text to that in Matthew where the Keys are given to Peter. In Isaias the Key of the House of David is given to one person and the Key is given to show that (this one man) has the powers of the King.

I say,

I see a conflict of interest here "that man" was just a man.

 

[Albion]

For the moment let us set the ECF letters aside.

Good.

Now let us look at the Keys to the Kingdom.

All right.

We know Jesus gave his Keys to the Kingdom to Peter. We cannot say that these Keys were given to anyone else with certainty because they are mentioned once and that is with Peter alone.

Then you are giving up the idea that subsequent bishops of Rome have that power, assuming that there is some. All right. No Papacy.

Now let us consider a possible meaning for the "Keys".

What I propose is that we look at Isaias 22:22. In this passage we have almost identical text to that in Matthew where the Keys are given to Peter. In Isaias the Key of the House of David is given to one person and the Key is given to show that this one man has the powers of the King. This person is a Minister of the kingdom and with the Key to the House of David he has the authority of the King. For the Lord of the Rings fans we see this with the "Return of the King" where another is placed in charge of the Kingdom until the King returns. Any wonder why we see similiarities in the Lord of the Rings as to scripture?

So, we can see the possibility that the Key in the House of David gives that man the authority of the King. Before receiving the Key the minister would be as other ministers that are judges over the people and law makers. They bind and loose. But when one minister is given the Key he becomes the authority because of the King until the King returns.

NOW follow me in my thinking and ask yourself is it POSSIBLE.

It might be...if the comparison were as you are making it out to be. However, it is not as good a comparison as you say. David received political authority. The Popes supposedly are the administrators of the Church, not government. In the OT, David received a "key." Peter got "Keys." Then too, keys appear in scripture elsewhere symbolising nothing to do with either David or Peter. No, the comparison is not convincing.

We know Jesus is in Heaven and seated at the right hand of the Father. Jesus could be said to have left Peter the Keys to the Kingdom so Peter could rule in Jesus' place here because Jesus entrusted that to his lead Apostle. Of course when Jesus returns he will take his Keys back.

And he "could" have had an angel write the Book of Mormon and stash it in a hill in New York state. He "could" have done almost anything, but we can only deal with what he advised us that he actually chose to do.

But also consider that the Keys are dynastic as with the House of David so that when one Bishop leaves another takes his place.

You've already pointed out that Peter was the only one to receive what Jesus was offering. In addition, the bishops of Rome are NOT a dynasty. They are not blood relatives of each other as in a royal lineage, and you cannot overlook the fact that the Popes are spiritual rulers in theory while the House of David was, as you noted, a poltical line and jurisdiction.

 

[Elijah2]

In Isa. 22:22 it says, "The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder. So he shall open, and one one shall shut, and he shall shut, and no one shall open."

By this I believe that they are saying that steward had the "key" that gave him an audience with the king.

(See Matt. 16:19 and Rev. 3:7).

Our Lord Jesus Christ said to Peter, "I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Now we can look at this verse as being a means of opening up His Kingdom to the various groups of people, such as Jews in Acts 2 & 3; the Samaritans in Acts 8:14-17, and the Gentiles in Acts 10.

Those keys would open doors to lost people. And the binding and loosing is referring to what we can do and cannot do, or permitted or not permitted to do.

This passage could therefore refer to those judgements that Peter may have to make about what would be permitted or forbidden in the Church, the body of believers of his time. Much the same today, as we all have the "keys to heaven".

Rev. 3:7 is talking about the Faithful Church, not man!

In Luke 11:52 it speaks about "taking away the key of knowledge", as the people are not brought to a good understand of our Almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ.

In Rev. 20:1, it speak about the "having the key to the bottomless pit", and this doesn't point to man!

And in Rev. 1:18, it talks about our Lord Jesus Christ "having the keys of Hades and of Death", which no doubt it is talking about HIS eternal existence, HIS becoming of a man, and dying on the cross, and HIS glorified resurrection state. This also refers to HIS authority over those who had died physically.

I can't see how man of today can be placed in the same realm of the "keys" or "key" as in the case of what I have posted above.

 

[ibba23]

Bump, God Bless!!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You say,
What I propose is that we look at Isaias 22:22. In this passage we have almost identical text to that in Matthew where the Keys are given to Peter. In Isaias the Key of the House of David is given to one person and the Key is given to show that (this one man) has the powers of the King.

I say,

I see a conflict of interest here "that man" was just a man.

Yes we know that.

It has also been shown that Jesus brought Truth and Grace from to the Old Testament. That Jesus fulfilled many prophesies. We also see many connections to past stories and what Jesus did.

My point is that I am asking for consideration. It is plausible and if you look closely you will agree.

 

[Albion]

My point is that I am asking for consideration. It is plausible and if you look closely you will agree.

I understand. In fact, I welcome it. To think things through and look at the pros and cons sure beats people who just shout preconceived notions and never want to have any give and take.

But is it plausible, you ask? OK, I say yes. Plausible is far from proven or even probable, though. And there are a lot of holes in that proposition which several of us have identified and explained.

Would you agree to that?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Then you are giving up the idea that subsequent bishops of Rome have that power, assuming that there is some. All right. No Papacy.

Not at all. I am trying to approach this from a different angel. And what i am suggesting would account for the Bishop of Rome as being Supreme to other Bishops because he holds the Keys.

It might be...if the comparison were as you are making it out to be. However, it is not as good a comparison as you say. David received political authority. The Popes supposedly are the administrators of the Church, not government. In the OT, David received a "key." Peter got "Keys." Then too, keys appear in scripture elsewhere symbolising nothing to do with either David or Peter. No, the comparison is not convincing.

We can say David had authority over his kingdom and that he was the deciding factor in all judgements unless authority were given to another. An example of this can also be found with Moses and Aaron when they appointed others to help judge the people and only brought the most difficult to Moses.

As to the comparison the Key from David and the Keys from Matthew are both a symbol of their authority. We have Keys with Jesus because of Heaven having more then one level.

Again, I am asking you to consider that this is a possiblity and I am not asking you to subscribe to it.

And he "could" have had an angel write the Book of Mormon and stash it in a hill in New York state. He "could" have done almost anything, but we can only deal with what he advised us that he actually chose to do.

Again I am only asking you to consider this as a possibility in interpretation.

You've already pointed out that Peter was the only one to receive what Jesus was offering. In addition, the bishops of Rome are NOT a dynasty. They are not blood relatives of each other as in a royal lineage, and you cannot overlook the fact that the Popes are spiritual rulers in theory while the House of David was, as you noted, a poltical line and jurisdiction.

Dynastic in that they pass it on. With the Key of David's House it would go to the next person. Same thing with the Keys of Heaven. It is the suggestion that if the Keys of Heaven are similiar in power to what the Key of the House of David is then they could be dynastic in that when one man left the office another was appointed the same office and passing the Keys he would then be in charge until the King returned.

Again... I am not asking you to believe this is the correct interpretation. I am only asking if it could be interpreted this way?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

In Isa. 22:22 it says, "The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder. So he shall open, and one one shall shut, and he shall shut, and no one shall open."

By this I believe that they are saying that steward had the "key" that gave him an audience with the king.

(See Matt. 16:19 and Rev. 3:7).

Our Lord Jesus Christ said to Peter, "I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Now we can look at this verse as being a means of opening up His Kingdom to the various groups of people, such as Jews in Acts 2 & 3; the Samaritans in Acts 8:14-17, and the Gentiles in Acts 10.

Those keys would open doors to lost people. And the binding and loosing is referring to what we can do and cannot do, or permitted or not permitted to do.

This passage could therefore refer to those judgements that Peter may have to make about what would be permitted or forbidden in the Church, the body of believers of his time. Much the same today, as we all have the "keys to heaven".

Rev. 3:7 is talking about the Faithful Church, not man!

In Luke 11:52 it speaks about "taking away the key of knowledge", as the people are not brought to a good understand of our Almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ.

In Rev. 20:1, it speak about the "having the key to the bottomless pit", and this doesn't point to man!

And in Rev. 1:18, it talks about our Lord Jesus Christ "having the keys of Hades and of Death", which no doubt it is talking about HIS eternal existence, HIS becoming of a man, and dying on the cross, and HIS glorified resurrection state. This also refers to HIS authority over those who had died physically.

I can't see how man of today can be placed in the same realm of the "keys" or "key" as in the case of what I have posted above.

This is an alternate interpretation.

If you do not mind answering if the interpretation I poresented is possible?