A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[racer]

Nope... But how am I supposed to feel special now.

That’s just the way it is. Sometimes “Reality” just mosies up and slaps us right in the face. It’s a cruel world.

If you look at Acts you will read where a Eunich is reading Isaih. This is a intelligent and knowledgable man and when asked about the scripture he says he needs someone to teach him.

Just as the Apostles needed Jesus to teach them and just as the disciple needed the Apostles to teach them.

First of all, you will find nobody here who denies the “Teaching Authority” of the Church. Nobody here claims they need no help with discerning Scripture. We all do to differing degrees.

See a trend? I hope so.

So, exactly how long did Philip instruct the Eunuch? When he was through instructing him, did he direct him to the nearest church to continue his instruction?

It is only with Protestant churches do we find things like Sola Scriptura. Guess what?

Well, that’s one of the big issues that separate us.

That is NOT every Christian.

Huh?

And guess what else?

What? C’mon tell me . . . I can’t wait . . . the suspense is killing me . . .

That is something that has grown with self righteous people and the so-called age of reason where every man woman and child was taught by liberal protestants that anyone can pick up a bible and understand it.

Must you be so judgmental of those who disagree with you? Tsk Tsk.

Then what is the "Pillar of Truth"?

Or rather what is the CHURCH?

The pillar and foundation of truth is the “catholic church.” So, the question becomes what does it mean to be the “pillar and foundation” of truth? Let me ask you this, and to date, nobody has answered this question. Say you are building a house. Do you lay your foundation, then determine the structure that should be built accordingly? Or does the house you are going to build determine the foundation that is to support it?

There is no other church that was around since the Apostles (EO is part of the Catholic Church as is Oriental).

Really, the church started in Rome? And, why do you keep bringing the EOC into the discussion? BTW, you didn’t answer my question. How do you know these things? How do you know that your version is the right version and all others are wrong?

All I have ned to know is that God gave of the Catholic Church to guide us.

Cop out—Catholics don’t let Protestants get away with such answers. You’re dodging. You have not answered the questions as to how you know these things to be true and correct. How do you know that God founded the RCC to guide us?

If you did then you would be Catholic.

Still dodging.

The Catholic Church teaches it...

What makes you believe the RCC has the authority it claims for itself.

Then they are not really Catholic, are they?

He is a very devout Catholic, and what he said is basically the same point you were making. Honestly, this is how it went. He was making the same point as you, that it didn’t matter if the “man” who is pope is corrupt, he still can not teach from the chair of Peter in err. So, good ole me pops off and says, “well if what you say is true, then for all we know the Pope could be the anti-Christ.” And he said, “yep, that’s right.”

Show me where it started...

That would take too much time from an already lengthy discussion. Again, if you would like to start a thread on the subject, I’m game.

That does not mean you understand. It also does not mean that some of these 'catholic' friends of yours are Catholic really.

Anyone can claim to be Catholic. I did for almost six years and I really was not.

My “Catholic” friends are very devout and know their faith very, very well. It is thanks to them that I have taken the time to learn what I have. They have cleared up some misconceptions I had about the faith, also.
You are truly speaking out of ignorance here.

 

[racer]

It is not important...

It is Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura ignores Apostolic Tradition.

Jack, are you getting confused? Because I certainly am. You've continually attempted to restrict the discussion to the "succession of Popes," now you're dragging Sola Scriptura into the mix. Are you sure you want to do that?

 

[racer]

I will ask again since your memory is not so good...

When did this happen? Details.

Let's see . . . what was it you said about "slothfulness?"

 

[racer]

And I thought my old age was making me senile. You make me feel better knowing that my memory is still pretty good.

So, I’m old, mental, a tad senile. You got a problem with that?

Point is Ireneaus was making a solid point that ALL churches must recognize the Church of Rome as being authoritative.

No, this is the point you are asserting that Ireneaus was trying to make. If you read the other sections provided for your education in this thread, you would see that.

The 'why's you can continue to specualte on. Apostolic Tradition tells us the 'whys'

What are you talking about with the “whys?” Whose asking why?

But what did others have to say about Ireneaus and his letter about herecies? How about someone from that time and their view on Rome as well?

Eusebius of Caesarea

"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).

It was the Pope that would declare a church that is being heretical as being excommunicated. It did not say Smyrna threatened to excommunicate the church as your previous post claimed Smyrna had equal authority. It was Rome that makes these threats and NO other.

Did you actually read this? Notice what was said, “Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over THE church at Rome . . . Do the implications of that statement penetrate your common sense at all? He wanted to do this, but the other churches would not allow it. Did you miss this comment: [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom"

This letter also references Ireneaus and his letter.

Um . . . yeah, I sorta noticed this.

These two letters together show further proof (when studied) that the Church of Rome holds the Authorioty over any other Church of Christ.

C’mon Jack, they prove the opposite of what you are asserting here.

But I have posted this quote previously thinking our other intelligent and knowledgable people would have understood that with out explanation at length. And repeated explanation at that.

Um, I don’t think it’s the other “intelligent and knowledgeable” people who ain’t getting it.

So, you’re really going to ignore this quote:
"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." - The Seventh Council of Carthage (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm)

If you addressed it and I missed, just point me to the post.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

[/color]
The pillar and foundation of truth is the “catholic church.” So, the question becomes what does it mean to be the “pillar and foundation” of truth? Let me ask you this, and to date, nobody has answered this question. Say you are building a house. Do you lay your foundation, then determine the structure that should be built accordingly? Or does the house you are going to build determine the foundation that is to support it?

The Pillar is something used to as a support or what upholds a structure. The foundation is what everything will be built on. This is What the Catholic Church is.


The foundation is provided by God such as sand or a rock. Jesus told a story about buiding your house on sand what happens if a storm comes (it falls). Jesus said he would build His house (church which means house of God) on a Rock (Kepha). And yes Cephus now goes by Peter.




But I do not question God any longer. God can build his house however he likes and I am just glad to be a member of his family and to be in his House. God Bless the Catholic Church the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Let's see . . . what was it you said about "slothfulness?"

I know that you have no answer. It is part of the lies that anti-catholics believe. I used to think these people were to lazy to look up the facts or that they were simply so hateful that they were glad to have one more reason to hate Catholics. No I am filled with joy to be part of such a persecuted church.


You have no answer as to when the RCC became corrupt and never went back. I know you do not because Jesus said the gates of hell would not stand against his church.

The most you can offer is lies and half trues which will be proven false.

So, call me not looking it what does not exist slouthfulness. The truth is you have nothing.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

[/color]He is a very devout Catholic, and what he said is basically the same point you were making. Honestly, this is how it went. He was making the same point as you, that it didn’t matter if the “man” who is pope is corrupt, he still can not teach from the chair of Peter in err. So, good ole me pops off and says, “well if what you say is true, then for all we know the Pope could be the anti-Christ.” And he said, “yep, that’s right.”

My “Catholic” friends are very devout and know their faith very, very well. It is thanks to them that I have taken the time to learn what I have. They have cleared up some misconceptions I had about the faith, also.
You are truly speaking out of ignorance here.

I will for the moment allow you to consider what I say as ignorance.

Know that your statement about the Pope being the anti-christ really depends on the definition being used.

If we are speaking from revelation where the anti-christ is the dragon then you and your Catholic friends would be wrong. Very wrong.

This is the definition I saw you using since it is so popular in anti-catholic circles. And you come off as anti-catholic.

But if you mean someone that does not believe that Christ is God then I would consider your Catholic friend's answer and say I would have to get back to you. Why? Because it is an answer I would be careful giving.

So, why don't you tell us what you meant by "anti-christ"?

Or will you offer more of your word games and provide no answer. Your games are tiring and maybe your friend answered your anti-christ question out of exhaustion from your continual avoidance of answering questions and bringing resources to back your claims.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Did you actually read this? Notice what was said, “Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over THE church at Rome . . . Do the implications of that statement penetrate your common sense at all? He wanted to do this, but the other churches would not allow it. Did you miss this comment: [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom"

What is your point?

That the Pope presides over the Church of Rome and other churches.

If so, that is what I have been saying all along.

Please be specific since I cannot read your mind. The Holy Spirit has not provided that Charism.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." - The Seventh Council of Carthage (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm)

I imagine Cyprian being pretty upset with the Pope when he wrote this. the Pope would not budge on this and it was not until the next Pope that things in Africa were cleared up.

But we cannot be sure of Cyprian's thinking here. Again, we should not to do necromancy.

But why do I say this when Cyprian so clearly states that no one is a bishop of bishops?

Well, assuming he means a Pope by "bishop of bishops" or that he is denouncing the Pope then I would submit his earlier writings:

"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. ... ’ [Matt. 16:18]. 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. . . . If someone [today] 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; first edition [A.D. 251]).


Cyprian seems pretty strong in his belief about the Chair of Peter in his letter about four years earlier.

Or how about his letter from 253 which was about two years earlier:

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the
Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).


Yet again Cyprian is rather strongly wording that the Bishop in the Chair of Peter has a special authority that the church needs to be unified.

Racer, what do you think happened and why do you think Cyprian wrote that there is no bishop of bishops in 255?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

[/color]First of all, you will find nobody here who denies the “Teaching Authority” of the Church. Nobody here claims they need no help with discerning Scripture. We all do to differing degrees.

What do you mean by CHURCH?

The Anglican church?

The Pentecostal Church?

The church of Jesus Christ?

Ma and Pa's southern Baptist church?




What is your meaning of CHURCH in your statement???

 

[racer]

The Pillar is something used to as a support or what upholds a structure. The foundation is what everything will be built on. This is What the Catholic Church is.

The foundation is provided by God such as sand or a rock. Jesus told a story about buiding your house on sand what happens if a storm comes (it falls). Jesus said he would build His house (church which means house of God) on a Rock (Kepha). And yes Cephus now goes by Peter.

Still didn’t quite answer the question. But, in regards to your comment, to support and uphold does not mean to “rule over and define.” It means preserve the truth as it was delivered to us by Christ, protect it and teach it.

But I do not question God any longer. God can build his house however he likes and I am just glad to be a member of his family and to be in his House. God Bless the Catholic Church the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth.

I don’t question God, either. However, I do question men who make baseless and Scripturally unfounded truths. Yes, there are some ECFs and some historical scholars who did adhere to and teach what the RCC does now. But, there are also those who teach in opposition to some of the RCC claims, as you now know since I’ve shown it to you.

 

[racer]

I know that you have no answer. It is part of the lies that anti-catholics believe.

For some reason comments like this just don’t seem to jive with these comments that you made earlier:

You see? I do not think I am smart or more knowledgable then you. You may have more knowledge packed away in your skull then I do and you may have a higher IQ as well. What you have not understood in ALL my posts is that the Catholic Church cannot ever be wrong in it's teachings since it is led by God and not even the gates of hell can stand against her.

As a Catholic I do not suppose my intelligence or knowledge is anything. I like to be used by the Holy Spirit and have God work through me but I try not to ever think it is me when something good comes from my actions.

It appears sumbuddy has some self-conflicting issues. At least you didn’t deny your spiteful tendencies.

I used to think these people were to lazy to look up the facts or that they were simply so hateful that they were glad to have one more reason to hate Catholics.

For someone so easily offended, you sure don’t have a problem slinging slurs at those who dare oppose your beliefs. You know what they say, “If you can’t run with the big dogs . . . . stay on the porch (some people should just stay under it.)

No I am filled with joy to be part of such a persecuted church.

Jiminy, here comes the “martyr complex” again. I just find is so ironical and flat out hypocritical to hear accusations of “persecution” coming from members of the RCC.

You have no answer as to when the RCC became corrupt and never went back. I know you do not because Jesus said the gates of hell would not stand against his church.

Someone, also, thrives off of priding himself on his self-delusions. You still haven’t told me how you know anything.

As to when the corruption took place, do I know specific dates? Not really. I believe it was a gradual process, and I think a lot of it’s errors were originally well-intended. However, pick a dogma like the Real Presence, The PV of Mary, the IC of Mary, which ever came first, that’s when the errors began to pour forth.

Notice when you accused me of “slothfulness” I didn’t rebut with untrue and acidic accusations. One really should ask just what spirit is working within him/herself when they make such remarks.

The most you can offer is lies and half trues which will be proven false.

Really? You’ve yet to prove anything I’ve argued as false.

So, call me not looking it what does not exist slouthfulness. The truth is you have nothing.

Oh, I have plenty, but if what little I’ve said so far sends you into such a snit, I’m sure you couldn’t take the things I could bring up. Also, if I did, then once again the RCs will cry—anti-Catholic. It all gets rather old.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It means preserve the truth as it was delivered to us by Christ, protect it and teach it.

That is exactly what the Catholic Church is and does.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

As to when the corruption took place, do I know specific dates? Not really. I believe it was a gradual process, and I think a lot of it’s errors were originally well-intended. However, pick a dogma like the Real Presence, The PV of Mary, the IC of Mary, which ever came first, that’s when the errors began to pour forth.

EXACTLY!

You have validated the fact that you have nothing. So why make unfounded accusations?

Typical...

 

[racer]

I will for the moment allow you to consider what I say as ignorance.

If you are going to stand by the statement of which we speak, without considering that you don’t know of whom I speak, then you are speaking out of ignorance.

Know that your statement about the Pope being the anti-christ really depends on the definition being used.

Good grief, Jack, there were plenty of popes in history who were flat out evil. Anyone of them could have been the anti-Christ.

If we are speaking from revelation where the anti-christ is the dragon then you and your Catholic friends would be wrong. Very wrong.

Of course, you’re not speaking according to your own intellect and prejudices. You’re just voicing the words as God puts them in your head . . . . When you don’t know about whom or what your speak, silence is best.

This is the definition I saw you using since it is so popular in anti-catholic circles. And you come off as anti-catholic.

Whatever, and I do not take offense to your accusation, because it is obvious, you haven’t a clue about whom or what your are speaking. For a man who would have us believe the RCC has humbled him, you exhibit nothing but arrogance.

But if you mean someone that does not believe that Christ is God then I would consider your Catholic friend's answer and say I would have to get back to you. Why? Because it is an answer I would be careful giving.

You just need to let it go. You are pursuing arguments you don’t know enough about to dispute.

So, why don't you tell us what you meant by "anti-christ"?

I meant and he understood me to mean the “anti-Christ” of which the Bible talks. And—surely—you do not take revelations to be speaking literally of the anti-Christ being a dragon?

Or will you offer more of your word games and provide no answer.

I’m not playing word games. I simply made a point using an analogy. Jiminy, all the sudden you’ve decided that all topics are fair game in this thread?

Your games are tiring and maybe your friend answered your anti-christ question out of exhaustion from your continual avoidance of answering questions and bringing resources to back your claims.

Excuse me, I’ve avoided questions? You care to show me which ones?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Good grief, Jack, there were plenty of popes in history who were flat out evil. Anyone of them could have been the anti-Christ.

Good grief? Are you a Charlie Brown fan?

When we speak of the pope or popes we speak of men. Man has sin and sin is evil. If we say an evil man is the anti-christ then someone can then conclude all men are the anti-christ since all men have sin. See the math?

The term "anti-christ" has been used in different ways both scripturally and historically.

I think it better for us all that you do not dumb this down.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I meant and he understood me to mean the “anti-Christ” of which the Bible talks. And—surely—you do not take revelations to be speaking literally of the anti-Christ being a dragon?

The Bible uses anti-christ in more than one fashion.

In Revelations we have one understanding.

In the Gospel of John we have another.

Or how about in Matthew, Mark and Luke where false prophets and false christs are the anti-chrtist.

Again, do not dumb it down.

 

[Uphill Battle]

you know what I find telling about "unbroken chain" regarding popes?

they almost ALWAYS omit the anti popes, they ignore the fact that the list has differed, depending on time (when one was considered pope, and the other not, and they switched...)

 

[JacktheCatholic]

you know what I find telling about "unbroken chain" regarding popes?

they almost ALWAYS omit the anti popes, they ignore the fact that the list has differed, depending on time (when one was considered pope, and the other not, and they switched...)

What would constitute someone being an Anti Pope?

 

[Uphill Battle]

What would constitute someone being an Anti Pope?

the squabbling over the Papal "throne." when there are two popes recorded in history, instead of one. RC picked one for their chain, for sure... but it isn't like it was hunky-dory single line succession.

It's easy to cobble together a list after the fact.