A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[Albion]

Here is a complete list of all the popes back to St Peter: [URL="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm[/URL]

It's a lineage of bishops of Rome, not Popes.

 

[Brennin]

It's a lineage of bishops of Rome, not Popes.

Right. "Pope" is a title the Bishop of Rome has arrogated for himself; it is not God-given.

 

[Albion]

Right. "Pope" is a title the Bishop of Rome has arrogated for himself; it is not God-given.

Of course that's true, but I was saying more than that. Not only did Christ not create such an office, but no bishop of Rome thought himself one until centuries after Christ.

 

[Brennin]

I agree the burial of a martyr amongst his murderer's dead seems unlikely, but...
How come the "Babylon" reference by Peter isn't credible?

If Peter wrote or dictated 1 Peter (the former is improbable, given the cultured Greek of the letter) then "Babylon" refers to the real Babylon because referring to Rome as "Babylon" postdates the Apocalypse. If Peter did not write or dictate 1 Peter, then it is a moot point. Either way, the RCC loses on that point.

 

[Brennin]

Of course that's true, but I was saying more than that. Not only did Christ not create such an office, but no bishop of Rome thought himself one until centuries after Christ.

We are in agreement on that point as well.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Right. "Pope" is a title the Bishop of Rome has arrogated for himself; it is not God-given.

Pope means 'papa'. Like when we call a priest father.

Sheesh!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Of course that's true, but I was saying more than that. Not only did Christ not create such an office, but no bishop of Rome thought himself one until centuries after Christ.

And it was another 1500 years when King Henry VIII decided he would be Pope that we have Anglicans.

So what is your point again?

 

[Brennin]

And it was another 1500 years when King Henry VIII decided he would be Pope that we have Anglicans.

So what is your point again?

I agree with the RCs here. Henry VIII had no right to proclaim himself head of the Anglican Church.

 

[Albion]

And it was another 1500 years when King Henry VIII decided he would be Pope that we have Anglicans.

So what is your point again?

The point you are trying so hard to redirect the discussion away from is that there is no lineage of Popes from Peter because there were no Popes until 3-400 years after Peter. That's when the bishops of Rome (see listing) began really to claim an authority that Christ had not conferred on anyone.

Understand it now.

As for Anglicans, the thread is not about Anglicans. But I'll respond anyway to that attempted diversion. The church was founded in Britain in the first century, is clearly identified in legal documents and history long before the Reformation, and no one thinks that Henry "decided he would be Pope!" LOL

This only goes to show that if you know so little as to write something as laughably wrong as that clinker, you obviously can't be considered at all informed when posting things about the Pope.

 

[Rick Otto]

He's got a point, Jack.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

He's got a point, Jack.

Not really...

What is his argument? That the word "Pope" was not used? LOL

Just kidding.

I think that even if we go with this 3 to 4 hundred year period then we still have to accept that since 400 AD there was a universally recognized Pope and that for 1100 years there was no change. That should speak volumes in itself.

This is not minimizing the Orthodox Church but I am trying to keep this from getting convaluted.

The first 300 years of Christianity was a time of growth and development and we have many writings still preserved that show a primacy to Peter and an importance to Apostolic succession.

We should not gloss over these facts with our modern ideologies of what many want to believe when the Facts so often contradict them.

 

[Albion]

I think that even if we go with this 3 to 4 hundred year period then we still have to accept that since 400 AD there was a universally recognized Pope

It was universally recognized--at least the Eastern churches and the Western churches of the then Christian world recognized--that the bishop of Rome had begun to claim universal authority by this time, yes. There was no agreement that it was a valid claim; the Eastern churches never agreed to that claim--as I think you know.

and that for 1100 years there was no change. That should speak volumes in itself.

No change? For the first 400 or so years, no Pope. Then the Bishop of Rome claiming that position but the Eastern churches (all the other Patriarchs) holding that it was a false claim. There's no 1100 years in there, no matter how you count it.

The first 300 years of Christianity was a time of growth and development and we have many writings still preserved that show a primacy to Peter and an importance to Apostolic succession.

Apostolic Succession is not the issue.

Even primacy of honor to the successors of Peter is not the issue.

Neither of those = Papacy. Neither of those involves the claim to universal jurisdiction.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It was universally recognized--at least the Eastern churches and the Western churches of the then Christian world recognized--that the bishop of Rome had begun to claim universal authority by this time, yes. There was no agreement that it was a valid claim; the Eastern churches never agreed to that claim--as I think you know.

I do not think history is clear on this.

I mean, the East and West were started in a time when Rome was the authority. However with the lack of communication and delay of communication in the ealry church I think over a few hundred years that East and West lost touch with the roots in Rome because they were so dependent on their Bishops per locale.

So you can twist this either way if you choose but there are many facts to support what I am saying.

No change? For the first 400 or so years, no Pope. Then the Bishop of Rome claiming that position but the Eastern churches (all the other Patriarchs) holding that it was a false claim. There's no 1100 years in there, no matter how you count it.

No Pope? That is pure conjecture.

The Church with the Pope has held records for the last 2,000 years that show there was indeed a Pope even if he went by other names.

What are your sources? I would guess modern thinkers with ulterior motives.

Apostolic Succession is not the issue.

Even primacy of honor to the successors of Peter is not the issue.

Neither of those = Papacy. Neither of those involves the claim to universal jurisdiction.

Succession plays a fundamental role in this equation and is important.

 

[Albion]

I do not think history is clear on this....I mean, the East and West were started in a time when Rome was the authority.

I don't know how you could ever come up with that idea, except of course for being led to think this by the church that has to most to gain by saying it. The historical record surely does not make "Rome the authority." Not in any sense. Nor can you say that there was a time when "East and West were started." We do know for a fact that the Eastern Patriarchs never--from the first century forward--accepted the idea that the Roman diocese was over them.

However with the lack of communication an
d delay of communication in the ealry church I think over a few hundred years that East and West lost touch with the roots in Rome because they were so dependent on their Bishops per locale.

You're making a stab in the dark of a guess there, aren't you?

So you can twist this either way if you choose but there are many facts to support what I am saying.

There's no twisting. That's what happened, straight out. If there were any of those "many facts to support" another view, I would think you would have mentioned at least one of them for us to consider.

No Pope? That is pure conjecture.

No, that is history. Saying that there was a Pope before anyone claimed to be one is conjecture.

The Church with the Pope has held records for the last 2,000 years that show there was indeed a Pope even if he went by other names.

Not at all. The records show men who were bishops of Rome, that's all. Naturally the church you refer to says that they were all Popes, but those men for the first several centuries didn't call themselves that, didn't claim Matthew 16 meant anything that you think it does, didn't assert any authority over the other churches, etc.

What are your sources? I would guess modern thinkers with ulterior motives.

On the contrary, there are many historians and church historians who explain this very well, but I know that you will only read Catechisms, etc. and not history in order to find out. At least don't immediately start calling "ulterior motives" when you don't even know who or what you are talking about. I have many years of studying this, and you can start too and find out for yourself. Are you asking for a book list?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I don't know how you could ever come up with that idea, except of course for being led to think this by the church that has to most to gain by saying it. The historical record surely does not make "Rome the authority." Not in any sense. Nor can you say that there was a time when "East and West were started." We do know for a fact that the Eastern Patriarchs never--from the first century forward--accepted the idea that the Roman diocese was over them.

How I came up with that idea was because of anti_Catholic people that think everything the Catholic Church teaches is a lie. Talking about historical facts with someone that is so very biased is like talking to a barking dog. The dog only barks louder when you try to tell it something and the dog obviously does not hear what you say and only gets madder.

In these many conversations I have learned to try and give a little when reason and logic allow it. In the case of the first 300 years of Christianity some historians and scientists seem to have some pretty good observations that may allow for some differing opinions from those that are not fully aware that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus is building and that it cannot err in it's teachings.

So my writing was to allow for some debate. But it seems you are not open to debate but only wish to throw redundant accusations that usually are based on conjecture or more than likely someone else's false teachings that were provided with the one intent of making you believe the Catholic Church is not the Church of the first Chrisitans.

But I know that when faced with evidence of this period and with an honest and open mind that anyone would see clearly that there was and is and always will be the Catholic Church.

I would like to point out your statement that is completely conjecture and at the least exaggeration:

Quote: "We do know for a fact that the Eastern Patriarchs never--from the first century forward--accepted the idea that the Roman diocese was over them."


I have had conversations with EOC and had many state that they too see a Primacy of Rome and only reject a "Supremacy". This was also stated in the EOC area when I was first trying to understand how the EOC could have schismed.

You're making a stab in the dark of a guess there, aren't you?

"Stab in the dark"???

Not at all. The first 250 plus years of Christianity had many obsticles. It is a testament to the power of God that Christianity survived at all.

With as far reaching as it was and with the poor means of transportation and the only way to communicate was to take trips at weeks and months at a time it is not surprising that the Catholic Churches in dioceses far away from Rome were left out much of the happenings (whatever they may be) with the main Catholic Church in Rome.

But it was not just the poor means of transportation and lack of communication that was quick for the Christians were also persecuted.

No Albion it is not a 'stab in the dark' at all. If you can imagine no phones, internet, electricity, motor vehicles and such then you can start to get a picture. If you can imagine how long it would take to get from New Yord to California with maybe a donkey or a horse or a camel then you can start to consider the hardships of such travels. No restaurants or gas stations and probably no doctors much of the time when they journeyed.

Consider the ways they had of keeping all the churches abreast of all that was happening? I mean really consider it.

There's no twisting. That's what happened, straight out. If there were any of those "many facts to support" another view, I would think you would have mentioned at least one of them for us to consider.

I meant that you can make one thing mean something totally different then what I can make it mean.

This is where being honest with oneself and being open minded can be a great thing. Otherwise what do you have?

No, that is history. Saying that there was a Pope before anyone claimed to be one is conjecture.

The was a Bishop of Rome and because Rome was held in very high regard that Bishop was the deciding factor in diocese disputes of the teachings of the Apostles. That is fact.

The only argument you can honestly make is that the word "Pope" was not a title for that Bishop of Rome and that argument does not take away from the facts that the Bishop of Rome had that authority in the early church.

There are many writings that atest to Rome making final decisions and even stating if the diocese does not follow then they are in 'grave' error.

Not at all. The records show men who were bishops of Rome, that's all. Naturally the church you refer to says that they were all Popes, but those men for the first several centuries didn't call themselves that, didn't claim Matthew 16 meant anything that you think it does, didn't assert any authority over the other churches, etc.

This makes you seem as though you are arguing over the title name being Pope. If so then consider that the Pope is still a Bishop and that Pope is more of a fond title. This is because Pope started from the Italian for dad or pappa. Catholics even call priests father. It is because of their ordination that we can call them father.

On the contrary, there are many historians and church historians who explain this very well, but I know that you will only read Catechisms, etc. and not history in order to find out. At least don't immediately start calling "ulterior motives" when you don't even know who or what you are talking about. I have many years of studying this, and you can start too and find out for yourself. Are you asking for a book list?

Yes I use the Catechism and I use the Scriptures. I also use the writing from Ignatius and Irenaeus and Polycarp and Origen and many others.

AGAIN... what are your sources?

Are they other men's work of this generation? And are your sources only of these men and their work? Can you find writings in scripture or the ECFs that support anything you claim?

 

[Brennin]

Talking about historical facts with someone that is so very biased is like talking to a barking dog.

Medice, cura te ipsum!

 

[Catholic Christian]

Medice, cura te ipsum!

I caught that one. I know Latin.

quid autem vides festucam in oculo fratris tui et trabem in oculo tuo non vides

Okay?

TO JackTheCatholic:
You're doing a great job presenting the facts. At some point though, you have to realize that some people are not open to the truth.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I caught that one. I know Latin.

quid autem vides festucam in oculo fratris tui et trabem in oculo tuo non vides

Okay?

TO JackTheCatholic:
You're doing a great job presenting the facts. At some point though, you have to realize that some people are not open to the truth.

Thanks for the advise and bringing in some latin back up.

I know some are not ready for the truth but maybe a seed will be planted or maybe I can help God shed some light in here for others that may read our posts.

Thanks again.

And good advise about removing the plank from our own eye before seeing to someone elses (free translators online are cool). LOL

 

[Albion]

How I came up with that idea was because of anti_Catholic people that think everything the Catholic Church teaches is a lie.

I see. So whatever they say, you automatically reject, even without knowing who is right. But I'd also point out that you aren't attacking them or defending your church against them, those anti-Catholics on those websites. You are just smearing any and all non-Roman Catholic Christians.

Talking about historical facts with someone that is so very biased is like talking to a barking dog.

But I like you anyway, which is why I ignore the barking.

In these many conversations I have learned to try and give a little when reason and logic allow it.

Jack, if that is so, I am pleased for you. You know, you are pretty quick to make accusations and unkind remarks to others on the basis of their religion, so if this is changing, I say that's great! We could all do better.

In the case of the first 300 years of Christianity some historians and scientists seem to have some pretty good observations that may allow for some differing opinions from those that are not fully aware that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus is building and that it cannot err in it's teachings.

You started out pretty well there. In the case of the first 300 years of Christian history, there are plenty of facts to sort through if one wants to really know what happened. As for "fully aware that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus is building...." why ruin a good start with a statement that is just a personal opinion?

Then we could have a Lutheran say that you are not fully aware that the Lutheran Church is the one Jesus founded, and we always have the Orthodox Eastern Christian saying both of those are wrong because their church is the one Jesus founded and is building up, etc.

There's nothing served by anyone just saying things like this in order to antagonize others. Notice that the members of most churches represented here--including many which are as easily slandered as yours is do not include some denominational "pitch" in every thread and every post. Could it be that they are not afraid for their church every time someone says something hateful against them?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

But I like you anyway, which is why I ignore the barking.

Ditto

Then we could have a Lutheran say that you are not fully aware that the Lutheran Church is the one Jesus founded, and we always have the Orthodox Eastern Christian saying both of those are wrong because their church is the one Jesus founded and is building up, etc.

I have never seen anything like a line of Popes going back to the Apostles from Lutherans??? I wonder what evidence they would have that they are the Church Jesus founded?

I think every one would agree that the Lutheran Church started with Martin Luther and that Martin Luther is the founder of that Church.

There's nothing served by anyone just saying things like this in order to antagonize others. Notice that the members of most churches represented here--including many which are as easily slandered as yours is do not include some denominational "pitch" in every thread and every post. Could it be that they are not afraid for their church every time someone says something hateful against them?

I am sorry that you think I have been antagonizing or slandering. That has not been my intent. I am sure if this were a conversation where we could see body gestures and hear tone of voice you would realize that I can be a 'smart ass' at times but I always try to be considerate. However I have to confess that there are times when I have felt I was being attacked and I respond strongly.

But getting back into the meat of this discussion...

The Catholic Church has records that can place every Bishop and Priest in a line going back to an Apostle. This is just one thing that the Catholic Church has that it uses to show it was founded by the Apostles.

I have commented on Martin Luther but what about Anglicans. Being that you are Anglican maybe you can tell us if you believe your church to be the one Jesus started and show us how it was not founded by King Henry the 8th?