A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[JacktheCatholic]

Wait a minute, we're not talking about the authority of Rome, only the Succession of "Popes."

For the EO and Oriental and Anglican and others that claim an Apostolic succession the succession of Bishops and records of such is important.

But for the Catholic Church the Authority of Rome is also required when we distinguish one Bishop of one region to another Bishop of another region. Parrticularly in the case of the Pope who is the Pope because the Catholic Church recognizes this title through Apostolic Tradition and scripture and things like the "Keys" and being made the "shepard" and being the "rock" that the church is made on.

When we discuss the merits of "A leneage of Popes in unbroken succession" we have to recognize that there is a line of Bishops that go back to the Apostles. Then we have to recosgnize that the chair of Peter exists and has existed since the Apsotles.

All the quotes I have posted have been to support this.

That should be a big read flashing sign that tells you nothing about the assertions of your faith are simple.

At forst they can be hard to understand because there is so much history involved and we are not living in the times of the Apostles with the understandings of scripture that the Apostles had when Jesus was here.

It is also because many people read the New Testamant and equate every written word about scripture to mean the New Testament even though the New Testament was decades off from being even started.

Then add to that the fact that Christians try to tackle the scriptures simply by reading them from beginning to end with no real knowledge of what was happening in the times they were written, with no knowledge of what the author was tellling and why, and without an understanding of the Jews and there lifestyles and symbols and beliefs. They read the Bible as though it all fits in with todays world and understandings of things. They do not recognize the simple truths of old because they are ignorant.

I know because I did not begin to understand until a few years back. I also went to a Presbyterian church as an adolesent and most of my life could be seen as agnostic. I KNOW from what I am speaking when it comes to this IGNORANCE.

 

[Albion]

For the EO and Oriental and Anglican and others that claim an Apostolic succession the succession of Bishops and records of such is important.

But for the Catholic Church the Authority of Rome is also required when we distinguish one Bishop of one region to another Bishop of another region. Parrticularly in the case of the Pope who is the Pope because the Catholic Church recognizes this title through Apostolic Tradition and scripture and things like the "Keys" and being made the "shepard" and being the "rock" that the church is made on.

When we discuss the merits of "A leneage of Popes in unbroken succession" we have to recognize that there is a line of Bishops that go back to the Apostles. Then we have to recosgnize that the chair of Peter exists and has existed since the Apsotles.

The explanation is good to have, but I think the point that you may be overlooking is that we all acknowledge that the bishops of Rome are the successors of Peter and that there is a chair in Rome. Practically speaking, what this means is that the quotes about the Apostolic Succession of the bishops of Rome are not telling us anything that we don't already know and accept. It is only the idea that this bishop is superior to the others that is in question.

At forst they can be hard to understand

Perhaps if you were speaking to a Baptist or Congregationalist, and this point was the focus of attention, but it hasn't been so here.

I know because I did not begin to understand until a few years back. I also went to a Presbyterian church as an adolesent and most of my life could be seen as agnostic. I KNOW from what I am speaking when it comes to this IGNORANCE.

That's fine, but the rest of us here are interested in the idea of Popes, just what the title of the thread says it's about, and aren't asking for background material as some of those you describe from your earlier life might want to do.

 

[Albion]

I believ if we look at a list of Popes we will not see any Anti-Popes.

That certainly doesn't mean that none have existed, just that that site deals exclusively with Popes, not anti-Popes. The names of the anti-Popes of history are not hard to find, however. Most standard references will give you that.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The explanation is good to have, but I think the point that you may be overlooking is that we all acknowledge that the bishops of Rome are the successors of Peter and that there is a chair in Rome. Practically speaking, what this means is that the quotes about the Apostolic Succession of the bishops of Rome are not telling us anything that we don't already know and accept. It is only the idea that this bishop is superior to the others that is in question.

For you I can see this much. I know you do not agree with the Catholic Church's stance on Anglican orders either.

But for some here the whole Apostolic Succesion thing is something they cannot accept because it does not conform with the church they are a part of.

If it were a person from a Baptist church coming here to see what we were saying, they probably wouldn't give a penny for Apostolic succession because to them the Baptist church is perfect the way it is.

And I think in previous posts we can see some of that.

As to the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome well that is a hard one and not a lot of stuff from the early church writings can be conclusive here. But there is stuff that can be used as evidence still. One thing I was reminded of a few days ago was Apostolic Tradition.

I will try to post something a little later when I am homa and have time.

That certainly doesn't mean that none have existed, just that that site deals exclusively with Popes, not anti-Popes. The names of the anti-Popes of history are not hard to find, however. Most standard references will give you that.

Yes, they exist. I am sure each has his own unique tale too.

 

[Albion]

For you I can see this much.

Of course, but I read back through the posts and I saw that it wasn't just me wanting to ask you to stay with the topic. You've now posted quote after quote that doesn't bear upon what we are talking about. We know that a Pope must be a bishop, but he must also live in Rome and be a male. Do we need to discuss both of those things about him too before we get to what everyone knows is the real issue here--are the powers that the bishops of Rome claim genuine?

But for some here the whole Apostolic Succesion thing is something they cannot accept because it does not conform with the church they are a part of. If it were a person from a Baptist church coming here to see what we were saying, they probably wouldn't give a penny for Apostolic succession because to them the Baptist church is perfect the way it is.

Maybe, but they're not going to be persuaded by posting quotes from the Early Church Fathers, either. Let's just keep it a discussion, can't we?

As to the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome well that is a hard one and not a lot of stuff from the early church writings can be conclusive here.

Which is the 'bottom line,' isn't it?

 

[racer]

LOL!

It is a Catholic site.


Here is Wikipedia but for myself I like the Newadvent one better:

Of course you like the Catholic site better . . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popes

But, this is just too much. The quote I gave you was from Wikipedia. Did you not notice the link?

 

[racer]

For the EO and Oriental and Anglican and others that claim an Apostolic succession the succession of Bishops and records of such is important.

But for the Catholic Church the Authority of Rome is also required when we distinguish one Bishop of one region to another Bishop of another region. Parrticularly in the case of the Pope who is the Pope because the Catholic Church recognizes this title through Apostolic Tradition and scripture and things like the "Keys" and being made the "shepard" and being the "rock" that the church is made on.

You miss my point. You have restricted our conversation to only that which addresses whether or not there is an unbroken succession of Popes. I was addressing this comment made by you:

WE have had not trouble understanding the succession of Bishops and those Bishops of Rome and the importance and Authority of Rome.

So, I was merely pointing out that this comment exceeds the boundaries set by you.

When we discuss the merits of "A leneage of Popes in unbroken succession" we have to recognize that there is a line of Bishops that go back to the Apostles. Then we have to recosgnize that the chair of Peter exists and has existed since the Apsotles.

And, I’ve exhibited to you that Ireneaus alluded to the fact that all churches besides just the one in Rome had successions of “bishops.” He didn’t use the word Pope even when speaking of the “bishops” of Rome.

All the quotes I have posted have been to support this.

To support what? That there was an unbroken line of succession in the Church at Rome? Or what?

At forst they can be hard to understand because there is so much history involved and we are not living in the times of the Apostles with the understandings of scripture that the Apostles had when Jesus was here.

They are hard to understand because they have been repeatedly butchered, changed, rewritten to include loopholes to allow wiggle room around certain doctrines which forbid certain things.

]It is also because many people read the New Testamant and equate every written word about scripture to mean the New Testament even though the New Testament was decades off from being even started.

What is your point and what does it have to do with an unbroken line of Roman bishops/popes?

Then add to that the fact that Christians try to tackle the scriptures simply by reading them from beginning to end with no real knowledge of what was happening in the times they were written, with no knowledge of what the author was tellling and why, and without an understanding of the Jews and there lifestyles and symbols and beliefs. They read the Bible as though it all fits in with todays world and understandings of things. They do not recognize the simple truths of old because they are ignorant.

Hmmmmm . . . not a bit of condescension to be found in that comment. That’s absurd. This argument implies that all who are not Catholic have no knowledge of Church history and are merely lead by their own ignorance. I’m afraid it is you who is desperately misinformed.

I know because I did not begin to understand until a few years back. I also went to a Presbyterian church as an adolesent and most of my life could be seen as agnostic. I KNOW from what I am speaking when it comes to this IGNORANCE.

And, what do you have to say to those who have left the RCC. Are they suffering from “ignorance?”

 

[racer]

http://aomin.org/Sermo131.html

Catholic Legends And How They Get Started: An Example

By James White

​

From this article here is a quote from Cyprian:

For example, he wrote in Epistle XXVI:

Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: 'I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers (emphasis added).

This fact is recognized by Roman Catholic historians. Johannes Quasten, Catholic patristic scholar, commented, (Patrology, vol. 2, p. 375), "Thus he understands Matth. 16, 18 of the whole episcopate, the various members of which, attached to one another by the laws of charity and concord, thus render the Church universal a single body." And a little later Quasten cites the words of an African Synod, led by Cyprian, which said:

No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who singly and alone has power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein (CSEL 3, 1, 436).

Quasten then comments:

From these words it is evident that Cyprian does not recognize a primacy of jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over his colleagues. Nor does he think Peter was given power over the other apostles....No more did Peter claim it: ‘Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disputed with him over circumcision, did not claim insolently any prerogative for himself, nor make any arrogant assumptions nor say that he had the primacy and ought to be obeyed’ (Epist. 71, 3).

Quasten goes on to note that Cyprian did see Rome as an important see, however,

…even in this letter he makes it quite clear that he does not concede to Rome any higher right to legislate for other sees because he expects her not to interfere in his own diocese ‘since to each separate shepherd has been assigned one portion of the flock to direct and govern and render hereafter an account of his ministry to the Lord’ (Epist. 59,14).

 

[Kristos]

How about this one - starts with Peter too...

St. Peter the Apostle37/45-53
Euodiusc.53-c.68
St. Ignatiusc.68-107
Hero I107-c.127
Corneliusc.127-c.154
Eros/Heros IIc.154-c.169
Theophilusc.169-182
Maximus I/Maximianus182-191
Serapion191-211/212
Ascelpiades/Aslipiades211/212-218/220
Philetus220-231
Zebinnus/Zebinus/Zenobius231-237
St. Babylas237-253
Fabius253-256
Demetrius/Demetrian256-260
Amphilochius?c.263
Paul of Samosata260/267-
270/272Domnus I/Dmonus268-273
Timaeus273-282
Cyril283-303

 

[racer]

How about this one - starts with Peter too...

St. Peter the Apostle37/45-53
Euodiusc.53-c.68
St. Ignatiusc.68-107
Hero I107-c.127
Corneliusc.127-c.154
Eros/Heros IIc.154-c.169
Theophilusc.169-182
Maximus I/Maximianus182-191
Serapion191-211/212
Ascelpiades/Aslipiades211/212-218/220
Philetus220-231
Zebinnus/Zebinus/Zenobius231-237
St. Babylas237-253
Fabius253-256
Demetrius/Demetrian256-260
Amphilochius?c.263
Paul of Samosata260/267-
270/272Domnus I/Dmonus268-273
Timaeus273-282
Cyril283-303

Well, folks . . . that seals it!

 

[Rick Otto]

I especialy appreciate how he starts out the article:
"The large gap that exists between Roman Catholic historical scholarship and Roman Catholic apologists is a large one indeed. One often finds the historians admitting what the apologists will not regarding the truths of history that are so often utterly contradictory to later Roman dogmatic claims. This is especially true regarding such modern doctrinal developments as the Marian dogmas and the infallible Papacy.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Over the past few years Roman Catholic apologists have been producing a great deal of written material of varying levels of quality. Books and magazines of this nature gain a wide audience. As in so much of our modern culture, many readers are willing to simply accept at face value whatever is said without performing any first-hand testing of the quality of the data being presented, let alone the conclusions that follow. The result has been a growing body of "Catholic legends," claims or concepts that are being presented as absolute fact by large numbers of Catholics who simply do not know better.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A glowing example of how these "urban legends" get started can be seen in the way in which Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism is treated by Catholic readers starved for some kind of an answer to the Evangelical position. If it appears in the pages of C&F, it must be true! And so highly questionable statements of dubious historic integrity (easily challenged by anyone familiar with the historic sources) end up being repeated as pure fact by those who implicitly trust their sources. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]On page 217 of Catholicism and Fundamentalism we find a paragraph that has given rise to two of these "Catholic legends," ideas that are utterly without merit, historically speaking, but are now a part of the "lore" that makes up the majority of Catholic apologetics. Just as the medieval Church built its power on the back of spurious documents and forged decretals, modern Roman Catholics find a means of propping up their faith in supposedly historical dogmas through this kind of writing: [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As Christians got clearer and clearer notions of the teaching authority of the whole Church and of the primacy of the Pope, they got clearer notions of the Pope’s own infallibility. This happened early on. In 433 Pope Sixtus III declared that to assent to the Bishop of Rome’s decision is to assent to Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith does not fail. Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, asked: "Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" Augustine of Hippo summed up the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is closed." [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We have often seen amateur Catholic apologists confidently asserting that Cyprian believed in the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, or that Augustine took the word of Rome as the final authority. Surely that is Keating’s intention, given the context, in citing both patristic sources. But, as all students of church history know (and as Roman Catholic historians have admitted for a very long time), neither early father would have agreed with the use of their words by Keating. In fact, Keating could never defend the veracity of his research against a meaningful criticism. Let’s look briefly at Cyprian and Augustine and see how this Catholic legend is just that: legendary. [/FONT]"
http://aomin.org/Sermo131.html[/FONT]

 

[JacktheCatholic]

How about this one - starts with Peter too...

St. Peter the Apostle37/45-53
Euodiusc.53-c.68
St. Ignatiusc.68-107
Hero I107-c.127
Corneliusc.127-c.154
Eros/Heros IIc.154-c.169
Theophilusc.169-182
Maximus I/Maximianus182-191
Serapion191-211/212
Ascelpiades/Aslipiades211/212-218/220
Philetus220-231
Zebinnus/Zebinus/Zenobius231-237
St. Babylas237-253
Fabius253-256
Demetrius/Demetrian256-260
Amphilochius?c.263
Paul of Samosata260/267-
270/272Domnus I/Dmonus268-273
Timaeus273-282
Cyril283-303

Antioch did not hold the authority that Rome holds. Not then and not ever.

I can see why EO would like to think that and use the fact that Peter started there. But the facts are that Peter and Paul were in Rome and it was Rome where they establish the seat and where the authority would continue to reside.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Of course, but I read back through the posts and I saw that it wasn't just me wanting to ask you to stay with the topic. You've now posted quote after quote that doesn't bear upon what we are talking about. We know that a Pope must be a bishop, but he must also live in Rome and be a male. Do we need to discuss both of those things about him too before we get to what everyone knows is the real issue here--are the powers that the bishops of Rome claim genuine?

For you the real question seems to be about the Catholic Church seeing a supremacy with the Bishop of Rome.

My understanding is that there is are more than one reference to this in scripture and from Tradition. You must always consider both scripture and the Apostolic Tradition since they are both of the inerrant teachings from the Apostles.

Some of these teachings I have mentioned but they have fallen on def ears.

Shall I reiterate some at the risk of further denials?

Why not?

The Keys of the Kingdom and the authority they provide in addition to binding and loosing.

Peter being the Shepard of the flock.

The typologies from OT to NT such as the seat of Moses to the seat of Peter.

That Peter is the Rock that the church is built on and that the gates of hell will not stand against it.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

James White

I cannot take this guy seriously...

He brings up the seat of Peter and says Catholics try to understand this as Modern Catholics and yet he has no clue about the church when Cyprian said this.

He fails to even mention the seat of Moses and how the church still held many of the laws and similar hierarchy of OT.

This guy is the one trapped in modern cage of thinking and is nothing more than illusionist getting rich as the wolf in a field of sheep.

Next time try to use your own thoughts and not this guy since his remarks can hardly hold water when compared to the numerous ECF writings when taken in their full context.

Ridiculous...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The large gap that exists between Roman Catholic historical scholarship and Roman Catholic apologists is a large one indeed. One often finds the historians admitting what the apologists will not regarding the truths of history that are so often utterly contradictory to later Roman dogmatic claims. This is especially true regarding such modern doctrinal developments as the Marian dogmas and the infallible Papacy.

Since this seems to make sense to you then show us from your own thoughts what he is saying by using quotes and links to back it. I have with mine so I am asking you no more than what I have already done.

Personally, I suspect you know nothing about what you posted and only read it and liked it and so you bought it... "hook line and sinker".

Show us I am wrong about you being yet another sheep taken in by a wolf.

 

[Rick Otto]

LOL.
It's too much for you, I know, but I can't dumb it down for you to make it any plainer than Mr. White already has:
"But, as all students of church history know (and as Roman Catholic historians have admitted for a very long time), neither early father would have agreed with the use of their words by Keating. In fact, Keating could never defend the veracity of his research against a meaningful criticism. Let’s look briefly at Cyprian and Augustine and see how this Catholic legend is just that: legendary."

Visit the link & lose your illusions, Jack.

 

[Albion]

For you the real question seems to be about the Catholic Church seeing a supremacy with the Bishop of Rome.

For me, it is nothing more or less than what the title of the thread says/asks.

What is so troubling about that?

My understanding is that there is are more than one reference to this in scripture and from Tradition. You must always consider both scripture and the Apostolic Tradition since they are both of the inerrant teachings from the Apostles.

Perhaps we should also discuss the myth of the inerrant teachings from the Apostles. You can't just take any legend that developed and call it the "teachings of the Apostles," not to mention "inerrant."

However, you should realize that when you have quoted the ECFs, for the sake of discussion I have treated them as if inerrant. But since they disagree among themselves on this issue, Tradition doesn't come into play. They can't be inerrant if "they" don't agree. Even the staunchest Tradition-oriented catholic should know that. And as for scripture, we have seen that it doesn't show us a Papacy, either.

Some of these teachings I have mentioned but they have fallen on def ears.

Well, you could say that the moon is made of green cheese and then when I say that there's no reason to think that's so, you could say that I don't understand, your words fall on deaf ears and all the rest of that which is nothing more than self-flattery. It still won't make a theory into a fact. But YOU COULD HAVE a dealt with the many reservations that I and others showed you about this Papacy issue. You chose to not do that but instead to repeat yourself and say that if you want to belive it, you are going to. OK, if that is your intention, why are you so concerned trying to make US believe a POV that historians and Bible scholars know is just manmade and grew gradually over the first centuries of Church history?

The Keys of the Kingdom

Already been shown to be guesswork.
1. David had a key; Peter had keyS.
2. David's power was political; Peter's is spiritual.
3. Keys are used as a metaphor elsewhere in scripture to refer to neither of these men.

Do you care to discuss these holes in your theory...or just to pretend you didn't read them?

and the authority they provide in addition to binding and loosing.

We don't know that they give any authority. You just said that they do because you want to believe that. Keys open things. Peter opened the world to the Gospel. Dispute that, if you can.

Peter being the Shepard of the flock.

All bishops are shepherds of flocks. But even so, what of the Popes? Peter is one man. You want to believe something about 200+ men who lived since him, not just Peter. You have never offered any coherent response to this very important hole in your theory.

The typologies from OT to NT such as the seat of Moses to the seat of Peter.

There is no allusion to the SEAT of Peter in scripture.

That Peter is the Rock that the church is built on and that the gates of hell will not stand against it.

The gates of hell obviously have not not prevailed against Christ's Church, so that isn't an issue with this. But Peter as Rock has at least a half dozen explanations. You, of course, pretend that there is only one. I can't make you a good student of the Bible against your will, but that's the way it is. We could, however, discuss--look at--the various interpretations of "Rock" and see...if you care to, that is.

 

[racer]

I cannot take this guy seriously...

And . . . seriously . . . I can't take Dave Armstrong . . . or Karl Keating (I've actually read Catholicism and Fundamentalism--the whole book) . . . oh, and Steve Ray.

He brings up the seat of Peter and says Catholics try to understand this as Modern Catholics and yet he has no clue about the church when Cyprian said this.

He fails to even mention the seat of Moses and how the church still held many of the laws and similar hierarchy of OT.

That's because he is only addressing what Cyprian and Augustine actually taught and believed. Now, if you can show us one of those ECFs or another within the first 300 years (it was you who wanted to restrict the topic to those centuries) discussing Moses or making the arguments you say White ignored, you may have a leg to stand on.

This guy is the one trapped in modern cage of thinking and is nothing more than illusionist getting rich as the wolf in a field of sheep.

You know, that's just too funny and ironic to comment on.

Next time try to use your own thoughts and not this guy since his remarks can hardly hold water when compared to the numerous ECF writings when taken in their full context.

Ridiculous...

LOL!! When you start using your own thoughts and stop regurgitating the false teachings of your faith, then you can have the audacity to make such ridiculous remarks to others.

 

[racer]

Jack,

When I say I read Keating’s book, I mean it. I’ve read other books by other Catholics, also. I didn’t really care for Keating or Hahn. But, there was one guy I read whom I found to be very informative. He wasn’t bitter, condescending or critical of his Protestant Counter parts. But, it’s been so long since I read the book I can’t remember his name.

You are letting your dislike/distrust of James White to blind you to what he is actually arguing. You are only hurting yourself by doing this.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Visit the link & lose your illusions, Jack.

I did... when I read about his explanation for the chair of Peter I almost LOL because it was so ignorant. He failed to even see the connection to the chair of Moses. Further reading showed it was plainly an anti-catholic write up to sell to his sheep that hate the Catholic Church for no real reason. That is the illusion and he seems to have sold it to you as real.