A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[Trento]

His qualifications are unmatched, read him for an even handed opinion...
Jack the word of God doesn't teach us that
His Church will be error free. If you read the word of God,
you wouldn't consider the Church to be error free.
It's the RCC that teaches the RCC is infallible,
not the Word of god, for an accurate depiction of history you MUST look outside her otherwise it seems as though your faith
is in the RCC regarding the Church never teaching error.

simonthezealot Note that the Council holds Nestor deposed. Pope Coelestine held a synod in Rome in which he condemned Nestorius. He then wrote to Cyril informing him of this decision. Importantly, Cyril convened a council in Alexandria to discuss the issues raised in the Pope's letter, and they too discussed the issue and then also condemned Nestorius.
This is important, because even though the "Pope" had ruled on this, and had informed Cyril, Cyril did not just follow the Pope’s lead, but instead called a council of those in his own See. This was because as Cyril understood it, he was the chief of his own area. What was ruled in Rome did not affect him. Surely, it did influence him, but the findings in Rome did not mean that the whole church immediately thought the issue was settle

Since we are talking about the period of Christological controversy i will leave you with a quote from Protestant History scholar J.N.D. Kelly whose works are studied in Protestant seminaries.

'The student tracing the history of the times, particularly the ARIAN, Donatist, PELAGIAN and CHRISTOLOGICAL controversies, CANNOT to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfillment of the divine plan'
JND Kelly Early Christian Doctrines pg 417​

 

[Trento]

His qualifications are unmatched, read him for an even handed opinion...
Jack the word of God doesn't teach us that
His Church will be error free. If you read the word of God,
you wouldn't consider the Church to be error free.
It's the RCC that teaches the RCC is infallible,
not the Word of god, for an accurate depiction of history you MUST look outside her otherwise it seems as though your faith
is in the RCC regarding the Church never teaching error.

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter

St. Cyprian on the Church and the Papacy
"...they dare even to set sail...to the chair of Peter and the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source...whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy [errors or perversion of faith] to have entrance." (Epistle 59:14) ​

Authority of Church Tradition


Irenaeus AD 180 --. “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome, , on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men” (Against Heresies 3.3.2)

Protestant Patristic scholar John Lawson’s work The Biblical Theology of St. Irenaeus had this to say about the Bishop of Lyons and his view of the Roman church and its primacy: AD 180​

[W]hat church can compare with Rome? She is the life-work of the two greatest Apostles, known of all and knowing all, she is a supreme witness to the unified voice of the Church. If it is necessary for each and all to consent to the voice of the whole Church, how necessary is it for all to consent to Rome? To S. Irenaeus AD180 Rome was most certainly an authority none must question, as she cannot be imagined as ever in error. The word ‘infallible’ to some extent begs the question, for the use of it imports into the discussion the results of later definition. It is nevertheless a word which is difficult to do without. With this proviso we may say that Irenaeus regarded Rome as the very corner-stone and typification of a whole structure of ecclesiastical infallibility. The Church and Infallibility by B.C. Butler pgs. 136-137 (c. 1954​

 

[simonthezealot]

Since we are talking about the period of Christological controversy i will leave you with a quote from Protestant History scholar J.N.D. Kelly whose works are studied in Protestant seminaries.

'The student tracing the history of the times, particularly the ARIAN, Donatist, PELAGIAN and CHRISTOLOGICAL controversies, CANNOT to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfillment of the divine plan'
JND Kelly Early Christian Doctrines pg 417​

What's your point trento... 4th-5th century the Papal primacy is finally developing legs...At least protestant scholars are honest .

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Blinded to the truth! Even with it glaring you in the face!

Again?

This merry-go-round is getting too redundant for me.

The "truth" is as I have stated many times. Rome has ALWAYS been the beacon of Truth for the Church. You seem to accept it from 600 AD on. So you should at least see the last 1400 years of the church as Rome as the defining source of truth. How much better it would be for you if you realized the truth of the last 2,000 years of Romes importance.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

His qualifications are unmatched, read him for an even handed opinion...
Jack the word of God doesn't teach us that
His Church will be error free. If you read the word of God,
you wouldn't consider the Church to be error free.
It's the RCC that teaches the RCC is infallible,
not the Word of god, for an accurate depiction of history you MUST look outside her otherwise it seems as though your faith
is in the RCC regarding the Church never teaching error.

The Church is the bride of Christ. This is a union. The Church and Christ are One. To say the Church has error is to say God can error. That would mean God was fallible.

 

[simonthezealot]

The Church is the bride of Christ. This is a union. The Church and Christ are One. To say the Church has error is to say God can error. That would mean God was fallible.

If you read the Word of God,
you wouldn't consider the Church to be error free.
In fact, you should conclude quite the opposite, since
Paul was always writing letters to correct certain churches' errors. In fact even in Rev 2 & 3 we see that the churches in John's day were filled with error.

 

[simonthezealot]

Again?

This merry-go-round is getting too redundant for me.

The "truth" is as I have stated many times. Rome has ALWAYS been the beacon of Truth for the Church. You seem to accept it from 600 AD on. So you should at least see the last 1400 years of the church as Rome as the defining source of truth. How much better it would be for you if you realized the truth of the last 2,000 years of Romes importance.

I accept what from 600 on?
1400 years of TRUTH? You mean indulgences at the pain of the lay? of inquisitions? of promoting false interpretation of scripture as was in the Galileo case to name just ONE of the many? of promoting hiding and paying off for silence of the harms done to countless thousands of children whom we as Chrstians are given explicit instructions on how to care for and nurture??? And all this you claim in the name of God and you say teaching not contradictory to HIS word, is not leading by example teaching?.... The church you speak of has lost ANY truth it once had, that is quite apparent.
It's not to say their aren't Christians within her walls.

 

[Rick Otto]

Trento;The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church.

Hogwash.
It certainly DID suddenly appear after 18 centuries of being "implicit"!

It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time.

Developed? Like massaged & shaped? Clearly understood - you mean exactly formulated, defined, and foisted on a council convened for a completely different reason?

In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter

Sure it is, & that cloud in the sky looks just like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir!

St. Cyprian on the Church and the Papacy
"...they dare even to set sail...to the chair of Peter and the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source...whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy [errors or perversion of faith] to have entrance." (Epistle 59:14) ​

You have REDEFINED "perfidy" for your convenience. Perfidy means intentional error:
perfidy​

Main Entry: per·fi·dy Pronunciation: \ˈpər-fə-dē\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural per·fi·dies Etymology: Latin perfidia, from perfidus faithless, from per- detrimental to + fides faith — more at per-, faith Date: 1592 1 : the quality or state of being faithless or disloyal : treachery 2 : an act or an instance of disloyalty

Authority of Church Tradition

Irenaeus AD 180 --. “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome, , on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men” (Against Heresies 3.3.2)

Ireneaus was on his way to Rome to face charges of causing civil disturbances with sectarian strife... OF COURSE he was kissing up to all the churches he wrote to, hoping for support to beat the rap. It worked.

Protestant Patristic scholar John Lawson’s work The Biblical Theology of St. Irenaeus had this to say about the Bishop of Lyons and his view of the Roman church and its primacy: AD 180

Just because some pious dude claims to be Protestant doesn't mean his doctrine hasn't succumbed to the counter-reformation & ceded back to Romanism!​

[W]hat church can compare with Rome? She is the life-work of the two greatest Apostles, known of all and knowing all, she is a supreme witness to the unified voice of the Church.

​

Totaly overblown sales copy for the brochure...​

If it is necessary for each and all to consent to the voice of the whole Church, how necessary is it for all to consent to Rome?

​

"The Voice of The Whole Church"? - Where did THAT come from?​

To S. Irenaeus AD180 Rome was most certainly an authority none must question, as she cannot be imagined as ever in error.

​

As the Bereans exampled, ALL Authority except God must be questioned!​

The word ‘infallible’ to some extent begs the question, for the use of it imports into the discussion the results of later definition. It is nevertheless a word which is difficult to do without. With this proviso we may say that Irenaeus regarded Rome as the very corner-stone and typification of a whole structure of ecclesiastical infallibility. The Church and Infallibility by B.C. Butler pgs. 136-137 (c. 1954
​

[/quote]​

​

​

​

​

Grandiose delusion.

​

 

[racer]

Since we are talking about the period of Christological controversy i will leave you with a quote from Protestant History scholar J.N.D. Kelly whose works are studied in Protestant seminaries.

'The student tracing the history of the times, particularly the ARIAN, Donatist, PELAGIAN and CHRISTOLOGICAL controversies, CANNOT to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfillment of the divine plan'​

JND Kelly Early Christian Doctrines pg 417​

​

Trento,

The difference in you citing current living or passed Protestant Scholars, is these men have declared themselves to be Protestant. We don't have to argue one way or the other whether they were RC or Protestant. They're Protestant. However, when someone else quotes a ECF in support of Protestant belief or doctrine, RCs can continually "assert/claim" that these me were RC, but the fact is these men have never in their lives made such proclamations.

You are intentionally misrepresenting what these Protestant Scholars teach and believe.

 

[racer]

Since we are talking about the period of Christological controversy i will leave you with a quote from Protestant History scholar J.N.D. Kelly whose works are studied in Protestant seminaries.

'The student tracing the history of the times, particularly the ARIAN, Donatist, PELAGIAN and CHRISTOLOGICAL controversies, CANNOT to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfillment of the divine plan'​

JND Kelly Early Christian Doctrines pg 417​

Why don't you cite online sources so we can check them in context? We don't all have the books you are quoting from.

 

[racer]

Okay, now I see why. Because you are only citing a “secondary source.” Have you even read Kelly or Schaff yourself?

http://itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2005/09/did-bishop-of-rome-originally-have.html

"Since its occupant [ie. the pope] was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fufillment of the divine plan" (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pg 417)

 

[racer]

Okay, now I see why. Because you are only citing a “secondary source.” Have you even read Kelly or Schaff yourself?

http://itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2005/09/did-bishop-of-rome-originally-have.html

"Since its occupant [ie. the pope] was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fufillment of the divine plan" (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pg 417)

Trento,

You're lifting this stuff strait from It's Just Dave's Blog. Do you have his permission?

 

[simonthezealot]

Why don't you cite online sources so we can check them in context? We don't all have the books you are quoting from.

Okay, now I see why. Because you are only citing a “secondary source.” Have you even read Kelly or Schaff yourself?

http://itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2005/09/did-bishop-of-rome-originally-have.html

"Since its occupant [ie. the pope] was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fufillment of the divine plan" (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pg 417)

Trento,

You're lifting this stuff strait from It's Just Dave's Blog. Do you have his permission?

This is all par for the course, its just like when trento quotes armstrong quoting Patrick o'hare quoting Luther, on what Luther taught, NOT one IOTA of intellectual integrity to THAT! and contextually deceptive!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

If you read the Word of God,
you wouldn't consider the Church to be error free.
In fact, you should conclude quite the opposite, since
Paul was always writing letters to correct certain churches' errors. In fact even in Rev 2 & 3 we see that the churches in John's day were filled with error.

Paul was correcting people and referring them to the teachings of the Church which are inerrant.

 

[Rick Otto]

Paul was correcting people and referring them to the teachings of the Church which are inerrant.

Paul was correcting Peter, not just "people".
The Church is people. The Prime Apostle, The Feed My Sheep - Keeper of The Keys Peter was in error. The Church was in error & The Holy Spirit moved Not Prime Paul to correct it.
Jesus discusses more Church errors in Revelation.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Paul was correcting Peter, not just "people".
The Church is people. The Prime Apostle, The Feed My Sheep - Keeper of The Keys Peter was in error. The Church was in error & The Holy Spirit moved Not Prime Paul to correct it.
Jesus discusses more Church errors in Revelation.

Paul was trying to have Peter see what he was saying because it had to come from Peter too.

The church is the people but like anything in the history of God we have people as leaders and holding higher positions.

Even Protestants have an hierarchy. But Protestants only have two sacraments and have only 90% of the Truth with the other 10% being twisted and false.

 

[Rick Otto]

there is more than a 10% difference between Cats & Prots.

 

[BrightCandle]

there is more than a 10% difference between Cats & Prots.

You got that right!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

 

[simonthezealot]