A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[kepha31]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kepha31
Can you define "asserted itself"?

Yes.

Ok. How long will I have to wait for your definition? Can you support such a definition with reliable documentation, minus the usual polemics and opinions?
Quote:
Does that mean dominating dictatorship?

I never said that.

I never said you did. It was a question, not an accusation.
Quote:
Is there any proof of this assertion you speak of?

Oh yes, plenty.

Can you provide any amount of “plenty” with reliable documentation, minus the usual polemics and opinions?

Have you forgotten the first 300 years of violent persecution?

No. but that did not keep the Roman diocese from becoming influential, owing to its location, size, and wealth. Christians were persecuted throughout the Roman Empire, if you remember.

What influence and when? Before Constantine or after the fall of the Roman Empire? We are supposed to be talking about the succession of Popes, if you remember. Was the influence evil? I already presented evidence that the persecuted Christians you speak of were Catholic, by referring to the Roman Catacombs link and all the Early Church Fathers from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries. If you can prove any of them were Protestant in any of their teachings, show the evidence or back off. You suggest that the early Christians were not Catholic without a shred of evidence, opposing a mountain of evidence that they were.


Quote:
Here is a question for you. If Jesus is not the founder of the Catholic Church, who is?

Jesus is the founder of the Christian Church, not of any particular denomination.

The Catholic Church is not, and never was, a denomination.
Quote:
What is original doesn't matter in the light of dialogue and the desire for unity.

If that is your view, then it is. I believe in the Church that Christ founded to the exclusion of all errors ancient and modern.

In teaching, yes. In behavior, not always. Was sola scriptura deposited to the Apostles by the Holy Spirit? How does Protestantism teach against moral relativism without sacrificing their doctrine of private judgement?[/quote]

Quote:
The Baptist "Trail of Blood" pamphlet is a classic example. Apostolic Succession is constitutional for a church to be a true Church, and this has always been the case from the beginning. It is part of how we define ourselves as Church. We have a right to do this the same as you have a right to define what your church is...

..Ecclesial communites do not accept Apostolic Succession. They do not deny this.

What does that have to do with me?

Nothing. It has to do with the topic. But I have another question about your remark that has nothing to do with the topic.

Can you name the year that any error was FIRST formally proclaimed by the Catholic Church that made no reference to previous councils, and what was the name of the Council?

 

[JasonV]

Rick, I think you should remove the pic of the Pope. I don't like what you are implying.

 

[Rick Otto]

i think you should wear a hockey mask & hold a butcher knife.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Can you substantiate that lie, or are you using the same logic that created all the other pomp & circumstance that attends your religious affection?

It seems to me that 'kepha31' posted a link that provided facts to support his claim. That to me and most everyone else shows the truth of his claim.

You seem to have a distorted way of perceiving "lies".

Maybe you could show with simliar evidence how any of the things stated by 'kepha31' could in any way be lies without your usual unfounded accusations. Maybe some a link of your own that presents evidence that has been proven by our fellow scientists?

OR better yet! Provide some support for your claims since they are nothing more than your opinion at this time.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

i think you should wear a hockey mask & hold a butcher knife.

A good halloween costume. But what about the discussion at hand???

 

[Albion]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kepha31

Nothing. It has to do with the topic.

Uh, no. It does not. It has to do with something Rick posted that you didn't care for. The topic itself (lineage of alleged Popes)was not involved in that at all. If you want to attack or corner Rick, that is your choice, but I can only be expected to stand by that which I believe and have offered during this discussion.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

[/color][/font][/size]

Uh, no. It does not. It has to do with something Rick posted that you didn't care for. The topic itself (lineage of alleged Popes)was not involved in that at all. If you want to attack or corner Rick, that is your choice, but I can only be expected to stand by that which I believe and have offered during this discussion.

Albion, I have stated previously many reasons why there is a Pope and my understanding which you have nicely stated you disagree with. I even brought supporting letters that I felt backed my claims.

Do you having anything that refutes the Bishop in Rome as being the head of the Bishops?

 

[Albion]

Albion, I have stated previously many reasons why there is a Pope and my understanding which you have nicely stated you disagree with. I even brought supporting letters that I felt backed my claims.

Do you having anything that refutes the Bishop in Rome as being the head of the Bishops?

Jack, I have pointed out that there is no evidence that he is that or ever was. Do you think there can be evidence of something that never existed?

The ECF's don't say that he was. You agreed to that.

The scriptures don't say it. You had to guess at implications.

History doesn't say it. I asked before if there is one single piece of documentation from the Apostolic Age of a bishop of Rome even CLAIMING universal headship over the church (let alone anyone else claiming it), and of course no one could produce this because there is none.

So there is no evidence of the bishop in Rome being the head of the Bishops. If there were, naturally, your theory would have some substance to it and not be just wishful thinking or blind faith. This is about as clear as it can be stated.

This is possibly the most powerful potential doctrine in all of Church History, aside from the fact of the salvation of mankind through the Cross. I say that because all other doctrines are, obviously, under the supervision of an infallible human if there were one. And yet you have to admit that your scenario is based upon stringing together separate verses, speculating on what seems logical with it all, and filling in a lot of blanks for Jesus. To me, that is proof enough that this is a wrongheaded idea. If it were what Jesus intended, we would not have been left in any doubt about it. But since it is not so indicated in the Word of God, we are not at liberty to dogmatize it anyway.

That, at least, is my view, since you have stated your view.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The ECF's don't say that he was.

The ECF do verify the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in ways that are direct and ways that show letters from the Bishop of Rome being authoratative of another church.

I have not said the letters do not do this. I have agreed to set them aside to try and show my understanding of the "keys" that Jesus left Peter in charge of. That is all.

If we look through more than half this thread I am sure we will find numerous posts that I have made showing the ECF understood the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. In part this is due to the fact that Peter and Paul we there last and that is where all the churches looked for guidance and correction. This same authority continued until the Filoque when the Bishop of Rome used the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son. Because the Bishop of Rome used the Son in this without first holding a council of Bishops the Eastern church rebuke the Filoque. However the previous Filoque of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and not mentioning the Son was also acceptable to Rome.

See?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I took this quote from "CatholicAnswers":

Pope Clement I

"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).


In this letter to the Church in Corinth and it's leaders (bishop or priest or deacon) the Bishop of Rome shows his authority in the teachings of the church. He says if they do not obey the church of Rome's teaching (because he is writing as the Bishop of Rome) then their transgresssion will be No Small Danger. He speaks as a father to his children and expects the children to obey. This is the language of authority.

Also keep in mind that the Apostle John would still be around for about 20 more years and yet this letter was not from John nor did it say it came from John.

Even if you and others refuse to see this that is proof you cannot deny the possibility of what I say.

If you say you can deny it then you must prove it.

 

[Albion]

I took this quote from "CatholicAnswers":

Pope Clement I

"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).


In this letter to the Church in Corinth and it's leaders (bishop or priest or deacon) the Bishop of Rome shows his authority in the teachings of the church.

I said that there is not a single document in the Apostolic Age in which any bishop of Rome styles himself in the way that you consider to be that of a Pope. You have produced the one scrap that comes the closest.

But note that if you read it as it stands, not as you have been told to read it, that it does not do the job. Clement nowhere refers to himself in that way. He does not say that his "authority" is based upon this or that. In fact, he doesn't even claim to HAVE any particular authority.

In all fairness, can't you admit that?

He gives advice, of course. And why not? He was the bishop of the church in the capital of the known world (as we used to say), one of the largest dioceses, and arguably the wealthiest. He was an important man, one to be respected when speaking out. BUT...

there's nothing here that amounts to claiming to be over the rest of the church OR that he even has some authority to lead other bishops. What he did is done every day in any church that has bishops.

 

[Albion]

The ECF do verify the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in ways that are direct and ways that show letters from the Bishop of Rome being authoratative of another church.

SOME of them give a special place to the successors of Peter. Many do not and instead call some other Apostle the leader of the Apostles and the Church. Even those that do say of the bishops of Rome that they are special DO NOT say that they are infallible or even governors over the rest of the Church.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

SOME of them give a special place to the successors of Peter. Many do not and instead call some other Apostle the leader of the Apostles and the Church. Even those that do say of the bishops of Rome that they are special DO NOT say that they are infallible or even governors over the rest of the Church.

What examples do you have of these letters that speak of another?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I said that there is not a single document in the Apostolic Age in which any bishop of Rome styles himself in the way that you consider to be that of a Pope. You have produced the one scrap that comes the closest.

But note that if you read it as it stands, not as you have been told to read it, that it does not do the job. Clement nowhere refers to himself in that way. He does not say that his "authority" is based upon this or that. In fact, he doesn't even claim to HAVE any particular authority.

In all fairness, can't you admit that?

He gives advice, of course. And why not? He was the bishop of the church in the capital of the known world (as we used to say), one of the largest dioceses, and arguably the wealthiest. He was an important man, one to be respected when speaking out. BUT...

there's nothing here that amounts to claiming to be over the rest of the church OR that he even has some authority to lead other bishops. What he did is done every day in any church that has bishops.

You have so much as said that this letter of Clement's could be some evidence to the Authority of the Bishop of Rome.

You then stated this is the only letter in the Apsotles time that does this even though i have shown how the "Keys" can also be interpretted as a symbol of Authority and not simply being able to open and close.

One could also surmise from this reponse of yours that there are indeed other possible proofs for the Authority of the Bishop of Rome in later writings, which I can readily provide.

So, I see where my side of this argument has letters and possible proofs that give what I am saying "legs". But what about your claim that there never existing any authority of the Bishop in Rome as being the Chief Bishop?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

From Catholicanswers:

Tertullian

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).


It was important to the early church to show a succession of Bishops from the Apsotles.

*Note: yes I know Terullian later became an heretic but his writings are still valuable.

 

[Rick Otto]

JacktheCatholic:It seems to me that 'kepha31' posted a link that provided facts to support his claim. That to me and most everyone else shows the truth of his claim.

It only seems that way because you weren't paying any more attention to this than you do to scripture & history.
This is kepha's lie;

Otto thinks the Catholics collaborated with the Romans to kill the true believers. Too bad he's never heard of the Roman Catacombs ..."

The link he provided had nothing to do with what I think, any more than kepha has a clue of what I think, because he doesn't listen any better than you do, being obsessed with defending the indefensible.

You seem to have a distorted way of perceiving "lies".

Take off your Roman blinders & get a clue.

Maybe you could show with simliar evidence how any of the things stated by 'kepha31' could in any way be lies without your usual unfounded accusations.

Being able to say "usual unfounded accusations" doesn't make you appear as intelligent as it apparently makes you feel.

OR better yet! Provide some support for your claims since they are nothing more than your opinion at this time.

My claim that Catholics killed Christians is common knowlege. Common knowlege requires no further substantiation.

 

[Albion]

What examples do you have of these letters that speak of another?

As I told you earlier, I did some research when this came up with another person on another forum at another time. It was not hard to do and I have the results somewhere in my office, but--off the top of my head--among those who held that the successors of Peter were NOT the head of the Church or that someone else was were Cyprian, Tertullian, and at least a half dozen of the most revered Fathers.

You are right, of course, in saying that some support the successors of Peter, but also bear in mind that:

The ones who are the most removed from the first church, those who write from the 300s AD for example, are quite possibly reflecting what had by then become accepted, not what had always been accepted,

that even saying that the successors of Peter were to be the leaders of the Church does not make them what is claimed later for the Papacy, i.e. universal jurisdiction and infallibility. You can easily be the most honored without being the boss, and

that the concept of Sacred Tradition is that there is a CONSENSUS among the Fathers, not that we can pick and choose which ones agree with us and say that this establishes anything.

 

[Albion]

You have so much as said that this letter of Clement's could be some evidence to the Authority of the Bishop of Rome.

No, I didn't. What I said was that is the best you can do. It is frequently cited because it is all that there is. But it doesn't say what you want it to say; it's just Clement giving advice. That doesn't make him a Pope figure.

You then stated this is the only letter in the Apsotles time that does this even though i have shown how the "Keys" can also be interpretted as a symbol of Authority and not simply being able to open and close.

Well, by "document" I assumed that you would understand that we are speaking of documentary evidence OTHER than the Bible itself.

One could also surmise from this reponse of yours that there are indeed other possible proofs for the Authority of the Bishop of Rome in later writings, which I can readily provide.

I said at least twice that there are none. But if I am wrong and you can produce any, of course I will consider them--which it seems to me is more than you are willing to do when I inform you of things you didn't know.

So, I see where my side of this argument has letters and possible proofs that give what I am saying "legs".

You're only fooling yourself with that, you know. You misrepresented all of the above points and tried to make me say what I did NOT say. So who wins at that game? You can believe that the Apostles came from Mars, if you wish, but I can still point out that your theory does not have anything to substantiate it.

What about your claim that there never existing any authority of the Bishop in Rome as being the Chief Bishop?

You haven't produced any yet, have you? But while you search, bear in mind that "chief bishop" and "Pope" are two entirely different things. Unless we establish that the chief bishop was chief in more than honor, we don't have a Papacy as you know it or believe it to be.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

As I told you earlier, I did some research when this came up with another person on another forum at another time. It was not hard to do and I have the results somewhere in my office, but--off the top of my head--among those who held that the successors of Peter were NOT the head of the Church or that someone else was were Cyprian, Tertullian, and at least a half dozen of the most revered Fathers.

You are right, of course, in saying that some support the successors of Peter, but also bear in mind that:

The ones who are the most removed from the first church, those who write from the 300s AD for example, are quite possibly reflecting what had by then become accepted, not what had always been accepted,

that even saying that the successors of Peter were to be the leaders of the Church does not make them what is claimed later for the Papacy, i.e. universal jurisdiction and infallibility. You can easily be the most honored without being the boss, and

that the concept of Sacred Tradition is that there is a CONSENSUS among the Fathers, not that we can pick and choose which ones agree with us and say that this establishes anything.

Obviously the EO has a history that is long in denying a chief Bishop.

But there IS indeed evidence that supports the Pope of Rome and his chieftom and being Vicar of Christ. This is evident in scripture and ECF before 300 AD.

You can choose to accept that the Keys are a symbol of authority for the Vicar of Christ and that it is dynastic in that it needs successors. OR you can choose to reject and only understand the scriptures and ECF as you see fit.


BUT... all the things I have presented are plausible and rightly correct whether you choose to believe it or not.

And again... if you are going to argue evidence then bring some of your own. You have brought nothing but your opinion.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

No, I didn't. What I said was that is the best you can do. It is frequently cited because it is all that there is. But it doesn't say what you want it to say; it's just Clement giving advice. That doesn't make him a Pope figure.

It was written in a style of Authority. So easy for you to ignore that when it goes against what you want to believe.

It seems people get so hung up on what they "want to believe" that they rekect the truth.