A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

JacktheCatholic · Sep 10, 2007

Hermas

"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Here we have another letter that shows Clement had authority. What was his dutie? To advise ALL the churches.

racer · Sep 10, 2007

Jack,

You really should read all of the article in this link. The decree for Papal Infallibility only managed to result in yet another split . . .er . . . uhem . . . I mean schism.

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Johann_Joseph_Ignaz_Von_Dollinger

In Bavaria, where Dollinger's influence was greatest, the strongest determination to resist the resolutions of the council prevailed. But the authority of the council was held by the archbishop of Munich to be paramount, and he called upon Dollinger to submit. Instead of submitting, Dollinger, on the 28th of March 1871, addressed a memorable letter to the archbishop, refusing to subscribe the decrees. They were, he said, opposed to Holy Scripture, to the traditions of the Church for the first loco years, to historical evidence, to the decrees of the general councils, and to the existing relations of the Roman Catholic Church to the state in every country in the world. "As a Christian, as a theologian, as an historian, and as a citizen," he added, "I cannot accept this doctrine." The archbishop replied by excommunicating the disobedient professor.

JacktheCatholic · Sep 10, 2007

racer said:
Jack,

You really should read all of the article in this link. The decree for Papal Infallibility only managed to result in yet another split . . .er . . . uhem . . . I mean schism.

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Johann_Joseph_Ignaz_Von_Dollinger

In Bavaria, where Dollinger's influence was greatest, the strongest determination to resist the resolutions of the council prevailed. But the authority of the council was held by the archbishop of Munich to be paramount, and he called upon Dollinger to submit. Instead of submitting, Dollinger, on the 28th of March 1871, addressed a memorable letter to the archbishop, refusing to subscribe the decrees. They were, he said, opposed to Holy Scripture, to the traditions of the Church for the first loco years, to historical evidence, to the decrees of the general councils, and to the existing relations of the Roman Catholic Church to the state in every country in the world. "As a Christian, as a theologian, as an historian, and as a citizen," he added, "I cannot accept this doctrine." The archbishop replied by excommunicating the disobedient professor.

FYI

I have been involved in the thread for quite some time. What you and some others do not realize (I think) is that I started using a different ID of "JacktheCatholic" instead of "actionjack".

I have been using "Jackthe Catholic" except when I was not able to log on with it at home for a couple of weeks and was using my old account of "Actionjack".

If we review the thread from it's beginning we will see where I had many posts with "actionjack" and many a debate with 'Simonthe Zealot'.

ALSO

I was discussing the Early Church and it;s growth and how the Church from the beginning saw a primacy in Rome and even the EO recognize this.

The end argument is if the Bishop of Rome has a supreme authority.

This is best argued in the first 300 years since that is when EO and Oriental started their schisms.

So, that is why I am NOT discussing something from 1870.

JacktheCatholic · Sep 10, 2007

Albion said:
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.

Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church (church of Rome), because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

racer · Sep 10, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
FYI

JacktheCatholic said:
I have been involved in the thread for quite some time. What you and some others do not realize (I think) is that I started using a different ID of "JacktheCatholic" instead of "actionjack".

I have been using "Jackthe Catholic" except when I was not able to log on with it at home for a couple of weeks and was using my old account of "Actionjack".

If we review the thread from it's beginning we will see where I had many posts with "actionjack" and many a debate with 'Simonthe Zealot'.

ALSO

I was discussing the Early Church and it;s growth and how the Church from the beginning saw a primacy in Rome and even the EO recognize this.

The end argument is if the Bishop of Rome has a supreme authority.

This is best argued in the first 300 years since that is when EO and Oriental started their schisms.

So, that is why I am NOT discussing something from 1870.

Wasn't it around the time of 1870 that Papal Infallibility was officially declared dogma? Dollinger wasn't just a priest, he was a doctor of Canon Law? You can't just sweep his arguments under the rug.

Excuse me You choose to completely ignore the teachings and beliefs of such a devoted and knowledgeable Catholic?!?! Here are some comments from the argument you choose to ignore:

JOHANN JOSEPH IGNAZ VON DOLLINGER (1799-1890), German theologian and church historian, was born at Bamberg, Bavaria, on the 28th of February 1799. He came of an intellectual stock, his grandfather and father having both been physicians of eminence and professors of one or other of the branches of medical science; his mother too belonged to a family not undistinguished in intellectual power. Young Dbllinger was first educated in the gymnasium at Wiirzburg, and then began to study natural philosophy at the university in that city, where his father now held a professorship. In 1817 he began the study of mental philosophy and philology, and in 1818 turned to the study of theology, which he believed to lie beneath every other science. He particularly devoted himself to an independent study of ecclesiastical history, a subject very indifferently taught in Roman CatholicGermany at that time. In 1820 he became acquainted with Victor Aime Huber (1800-1869), a fact which largely influenced his life. On the 5th of April 1822 he was ordained priest, after studying at Bamberg, and in 1823 he became professor of ecclesiastical history and canon law in the lyceum at Aschaffenburg. He then took his doctor's degree, and in 1826 became professor of theology at Munich, where he spent the rest of his life.About this time Dbllinger brought upon himself the animadversion of Heine, who was then editor of a Munich paper.

It has been said that his change of relations to the Papacy dated from the Italian war in 1859, but no sufficient reason has been given for this statement. It is more probable that, like Grosseteste, he had imbibed in early youth an enthusiastic sentiment of attachment to the Papacy as the only centre of authority, and the only guarantee for public order in the Church, but that his experience of the actual working of the papal system (land especially a visit to Rome in 1857) had to a certain extent convinced him how little correspondence there was between his ideal and the reality.

But whatever may have been his reasons, he ultimately became the leader of those who were energetically opposed to any addition to, or more stringent definition of, the powers which the Papacy had possessed for centuries. In some speeches delivered at Munich in 1861 he outspokenly declared his view that the maintenance of the Roman Catholic Church did not depend on the temporal sovereignty of the pope.

Early in 1869 the famous Letters of Janus (which were at once translated into English; 2nd ed. Das Papsttum, 1891) began to appear. They were written by D6llinger in conjunction with Huber and Friedrich, afterwards professor at Munich. In these the tendency of the Syllabus towards obscurantism and papal despotism, and its incompatibility with modern thought, were clearly pointed out; and the evidence against papal infallibility, resting, as the Letters asserted, on the False Decretals, and accepted without controversy in an age of ignorance, was ably marshalled for the guidance of the council.

The momentous question was discussed at a meeting of the opponents of the Vatican decrees, and it was resolved to elect a bishop and ask the Dutch bishops to consecrate him. Dollinger, however, voted against the proposition, and withdrew from any further steps towards the promotion of the movement. This was the critical moment in the history of the resistance to the decrees. Had Dollinger, with his immense reputation as a scholar, as a divine and as a man, allowed himself to be consecrated bishop of the Old Catholic Church, it is impossible to say how wide the schism would have been. But he declined to initiate a schism.

Come on, we're not just talking about your run of the mill anti-Catholic with an ulterior motive for attacking or meligning the RCC. He was very devoted to his faith and was not willing to be part of the resultins Schism? How do you justify ignoring his resistance to Papal Infallibility?

JacktheCatholic · Sep 10, 2007

racer said:
Wasn't it around the time of 1870 that Papal Infallibility was officially declared dogma?

What does that have to do with the current conversation or for that matter the successions of Popes?

racer · Sep 10, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church (church of Rome), because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Okay, Jack the Catholic, Action Jack, or Jack Sprat, that quote doesn't even say what you are implying. It says nothing about any pope or a papal office.

Let's look at this quote in context:

Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 3)
A refutation of the heretics, from the fact that, in the various Churches, a perpetual succession of bishops was kept up.

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most gloriousapostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Look again what Ireneaus actually said:

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world;

2. if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves.

3. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches,

(I thought maybe this quote needed a little clarification. Notice that he says, "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this to reckon up the successions of all the Churche.? Do you comprehend the importance of this statement? He is basically saying that all of the other churches other than the one in Rome have their own lines of succession. It would just have take too much time and room for him to list all of those in this particular texts. Puts a whole new meaning on the words to which you resort, doesn't it?

4. Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;

5. inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

racer · Sep 10, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
What does that have to do with the current conversation or for that matter the successions of Popes?

That not only a very prominent church Canon Lawyer/church historian/bishop, etc . . . . and a group of other prominent men did not believe that the Church had historically taught in the infallibility of the Papal office.

Do you really need to ask?

JacktheCatholic · Sep 10, 2007

racer said:
Okay, Jack the Catholic that quote doesn't even say what you are implying. It says nothing about any pope or a papal office.

What it IS saying that is that the Church in Rome is the one church that ALL other churches must be in agreement with.

JacktheCatholic · Sep 10, 2007

racer said:
That not only a very prominent church Canon Lawyer/church historian/bishop, etc . . . . and a group of other prominent men did not believe that the Church had historically taught in the infallibility of the Papal office.

Do you really need to ask?

Neither did Saddam Hussein as far as I know.

But if the Early Church taught and thought it then that is quite different than what some German theologan thought in the 19th century.

You want to dilute this with 19th century theologians I am sure we can find stuff saying the devil is as powerful as God we should all know that is obsurd in the least.

JacktheCatholic · Sep 10, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
What it IS saying that is that the Church in Rome is the one church that ALL other churches must be in agreement with.

I think we can also add...

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: I say to you, he says, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven [Matt. 16:1819]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Which shows Peters primacy and the chair that Jesus set up. This is similiar to how Moses had his chair but with Peter Jesus started His church on Peter and broke away from the Chair of Moses.

We also see reference to the Keys and it plainly shows that Peter has Primacy and by the chair we have a office of succession.

Albion · Sep 10, 2007

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

How sophomoric. So if someone merely acts or speaks authoritatively, you are immediately willing to consider him to be the ruler of everything and infallible to boot?

It really boils down to you believing whatever you are told to believe by your church, whatever the implausibility, but you won't consider anything else, no matter what its merits, so long as it comes from another source.

racer · Sep 10, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
What it IS saying that is that the Church in Rome is the one church that ALL other churches must be in agreement with.

Actually, that's not what it is saying. And "if" I get time, I will address this for you today, maybe tomorrow.

racer · Sep 10, 2007

Ooooooops . . . . . . .

racer · Sep 10, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
Neither did Saddam Hussein as far as I know.

Well, as far as "I" know, Saddam Hussein never professed to be Roman Catholic, nor was he ever ordained as A Catholic Priest, a Canon Lawyer, etc . . . .

But if the Early Church taught and thought it then that is quite different than what some German theologan thought in the 19th century.

Well, you may have a point, if he were nothing more than a "German" theologian. He was much more than that if you would take the time to read the article.

You want to dilute this with 19th century theologians I am sure we can find stuff saying the devil is as powerful as God we should all know that is obsurd in the least.

It was in the very same century that Papal Infalliblity was dogmatically proclaimed. Should we therefore dismiss it as having any credibility?

Hey . . . . I'm game if you are.

racer · Sep 10, 2007

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

Well, to be more specific, at least the writings which appear to agree with Catholicism are still valuable.

JacktheCatholic · Sep 10, 2007

racer said:
Actually, that's not what it is saying. And "if" I get time, I will address this for you today, maybe tomorrow.

Thanks!

A response not loaded with opinion or condescension would be some fresh air in here.

JacktheCatholic · Sep 10, 2007

racer said:
Well, you may have a point, if he were nothing more than a "German" theologian. He was much more than that if you would take the time to read the article.

It was in the very same century that Papal Infalliblity was dogmatically proclaimed. Should we therefore dismiss it as having any credibility?

Hey . . . . I'm game if you are.

I just do not see the topic of "papal infallibility" being proper at this time. It will get convaluted enough without that and I do not see it as necessary.

I would like to discuss "Papal Infallibility" at another time though.

Rick Otto · Sep 10, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
A response not loaded with opinion or condescension would be some fresh air in here.

Shouldn't you give one before expecting to get one?
Pr 18:24 - Show Context A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

racer · Sep 10, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
FYI

I have been involved in the thread for quite some time. What you and some others do not realize (I think) is that I started using a different ID of "JacktheCatholic" instead of "actionjack".

No, I did not notice. Because, if you noticed I'm relatively new to the discussion, and simply do not have time to review the whole thread. However, if I have repeated something that's already been discussed, please forgive me. If there is a particular post you would like for me to read, then please at least give me the post number.

I was discussing the Early Church and it;s growth and how the Church from the beginning saw a primacy in Rome and even the EO recognize this.

So, you know more about the early church than does Von Dollinger? None of the quotes you've provided have implied any such thing. You do not address the points I made to your regarding Augustine and Ireneaus. You pretend like you do not see them. However, everyone else following the discussion has read them, I'm sure.

Von Dollinger was a very prominent man in the RCC. You'll have to find good reason to dismiss what he had to say other than his protest came in 1870. This is precisely when the subject became a point of contention in the church. Try googling some information on him and the movement of the Old Catholic Church.
[quore]The end argument is if the Bishop of Rome has a supreme authority.[/quote]
And the answer is purely subjective and dependant upon how we are defining/understanding "authority."

This is best argued in the first 300 years since that is when EO and Oriental started their schisms.

Well, I've shown you how Ireneaus' quote did not assert what you've implied.

So, that is why I am NOT discussing something from 1870.

So, then you are willing to say that the possibility that Rome may have been the "center of authority (ie: headquarters of the Churhc)" does not then imply or assert that Rome is the See of the Papal Chair? Otherwise, you can not ignore what occurred in 1870.

A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Contributor

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Contributor

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Contributor

Contributor

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Facilitator

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

The Dude Abides

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency