A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

DArceri · May 10, 2007

Trento,
My question really had nothing to do with Paul. You need to stop with the cutting and pasting of your catholic apologetic web-answers. YOU DIDN'T EVEN ANSWER EITHER OF MY TWO QUESTIONS:

1.) Why is Peter considered the first Pope when in Acts, THE biggest decision the church would ever make (matter of salvation), was sent to James juridiction for his final judgement on the matter?

2.) Was Peter ever first to preach in any area of the church? It seems to me that Acts 15:35 suggests that Paul remained in Antioch for awhile preaching the Gospel. Also, Paul went to Rome before Peter to preach the Gospel there also (if Peter went at all).

By the way, that apologetic response about Peter being the "median figure to whom both are subtly conformed", I thought was pretty lame.

Ethan_Fetch · May 10, 2007

There is really no reason outside of sheer partisan posturing to believe that Peter wasn't in Rome leading the church there and that he died there as well.

Albion · May 10, 2007

sheina said:
If Peter had been in Rome, Paul certainly would have mentioned him in his epistle to the Romans. Since Peter was never in Rome, he could not be the first Pope (or Bishop of Rome). There is no Apostolic Succession. God calls pastors and deacons, not Popes.

It's possible Peter was in Rome, but it's not certain. More to the point is the plain fact that just because there were bishops in Rome, and there was a succession from them as in the other Christian centers (such as Antioch where Peter surely WAS bishop), that this makes any of them "Popes."

It is a complete non-sequitur to say that if Peter was in Rome and if he made Linus his successor, etc. that this means anything more than that there was a church with bishops in Rome.

Ethan_Fetch · May 10, 2007

Albion said:
It's possible Peter was in Rome, but it's not certain. More to the point is the plain fact that just because there were bishops in Rome, and there was a succession from them as in the other Christian centers (such as Antioch where Peter surely WAS bishop), that this makes any of them "Popes."

It is a complete non-sequitur to say that if Peter was in Rome and if he made Linus his successor, etc. that this means anything more than that there was a church with bishops in Rome.

Ironically enough, we have NO evidence at all that the Church in Rome had anything like an episcopal administration until some time in the second century.

It seems more likely, given the cosmopolitan and multi-ethnic nature of Tiberian society and the plurality of Petrine disciples of high ability and prestige, that a kind of Presbyteral Collegium or Synod prevailed until that time.

Albion · May 14, 2007

Ethan_Fetch said:
It seems more likely, given the cosmopolitan and multi-ethnic nature of Tiberian society and the plurality of Petrine disciples of high ability and prestige, that a kind of Presbyteral Collegium or Synod prevailed until that time.

Well, that wouldn't rule out bishops.

Ethan_Fetch · May 14, 2007

Albion said:
Well, that wouldn't rule out bishops.

True but it would imply a different perspective on the episcopacy than we may be accustomed to assuming.

I think that all we really know is that the Episcopacy as a distinct office in the church, while a very early development, did not come into place at the same time everywhere and that different geo-political units had different modifying factors slowing down or speeding up the process.

An example would be the remarkable effect the removal of the Imperial governmental apparatus to Ravenna had on the office and authority of the Roman see in the early fifth century as well as the subsequent sack of Rome by the Goths later in that century. One can well imagine a distraught Roman populace only too willing to invest their Bishop with extraordinary immediate authority in the complete absence of any civil government to speak of.

Anyhow, very early on it is entirely possible that Rome had two or three bishops at once, by which it would have meant a group of Presbyters of exceptional prestige due primarily to his Petrine discipleship but what we really oughtn't to say categorically, however much we may wish to, is that one of them had a specifically Pontifical hierarchy over any of the others.

That would be revisionism: the reading back into history circumstances that we see today and it would have the compound problem of having been done for polemical purposes.

Albion · May 15, 2007

Ethan_Fetch said:
True but it would imply a different perspective on the episcopacy than we may be accustomed to assuming.

I suppose that depends upon what one is assuming as the history of the office of bishop. We know that they are mentioned in scripture, so bishops are not a later invention, and they were also at that early time the presiding elders in parishes which had a number of elders. We should also know that the idea of Apostolic Succession began as an expedient, not as a magical power. Those clergy who could tie their ordination to one of the Apostles were naturally more to be trusted.

An example would be the remarkable effect the removal of the Imperial governmental apparatus to Ravenna had on the office and authority of the Roman see in the early fifth century as well as the subsequent sack of Rome by the Goths later in that century. One can well imagine a distraught Roman populace only too willing to invest their Bishop with extraordinary immediate authority in the complete absence of any civil government to speak of.

Well, it seems you are returning to the origins of Papal Supremacy now, whereas I had picked upon on your reference to the origins of the episcopal office itself.

Anyhow, very early on it is entirely possible that Rome had two or three bishops at once, by which it would have meant a group of Presbyters of exceptional prestige due primarily to his Petrine discipleship but what we really oughtn't to say categorically, however much we may wish to, is that one of them had a specifically Pontifical hierarchy over any of the others.

I follow you, but my view would be somewhat different. We do have reason to think that some bishops had more influence than other ones. The question then is whether or not any of these first-century bishops were considered to have worldwide jurisdiction and, if so, by whose authority. The facts say "No" to the universal jurisdiction of any bishop, and the idea of Apostolic Succession has nothing to do with Christ's intention. Papal Supremacy is only a human explanation of the growth of the influence of the Roman church, something that happened for purely human reasons, an attempt to justify and support that development by claiming Christ as the originator of it rather than the socio-historical factors that really were responsible. We see the same thing today. When controversies arise in church administration, it always makes for a better and almost unassailable argument to say that the Holy Spirit was leading us into this than to say that the leaders decided to it for good order, fairness, expediency, or whatever is the real reason.

VioletAngel · May 15, 2007

sheina said:
If Peter had been in Rome, Paul certainly would have mentioned him in his epistle to the Romans. Since Peter was never in Rome, he could not be the first Pope (or Bishop of Rome). There is no Apostolic Succession. God calls pastors and deacons, not Popes.

How about Bishops?

1 Tim 3:1, 2; 4:22, Titus 1:7, 3:15, 1 Peter 2:25

Albion · May 15, 2007

VioletAngel said:
How about Bishops?

1 Tim 3:1, 2; 4:22, Titus 1:7, 3:15, 1 Peter 2:25

Without doubt! However, this really has nothing to do with Popes, and is not any indication of Apostolic Succession.

We can all agree on that, can't we?

VioletAngel · May 15, 2007

Albion said:
Without doubt! However, this really has nothing to do with Popes, and is not any indication of Apostolic Succession.

We can all agree on that, can't we?

I was indicating the "God calls pastors and deacons, not Popes" comment.... should have trimmed down the quote a little more, I guess.

It's just my Church is mentioned in Acts. She never disappeared, and is still with us. Last time I heard, protestants do not have Bishops.

JeffreyLloyd · May 15, 2007

VioletAngel said:
...Last time I heard, protestants do not have Bishops.

Some do, I've known a few self appointed Pentecostal "bishops."

Ethan_Fetch · May 15, 2007

Albion said:
I suppose that depends upon what one is assuming as the history of the office of bishop. We know that they are mentioned in scripture, so bishops are not a later invention, and they were also at that early time the presiding elders in parishes which had a number of elders.

We don't really know that at all. In the Bible the titles of Bishop and Elder are used to describe the same office. See Titus 1:5-9

Albion said:
We should also know that the idea of Apostolic Succession began as an expedient, not as a magical power. Those clergy who could tie their ordination to one of the Apostles were naturally more to be trusted.

I agree.

Albion said:
Well, it seems you are returning to the origins of Papal Supremacy now, whereas I had picked upon on your reference to the origins of the episcopal office itself.

Well, it was part of the whole argument since the main idea I was responding to was the conclusion that Peter ordained Linus to succeed him who, in turn ordained Anacletus who in turn ordained Clement, etc. i.e. That Rome has always had a succession of ruling Bishops in descent from Peter and that this is somehow historically verifiable.

It actually isn't.

Albion said:
I follow you, but my view would be somewhat different. We do have reason to think that some bishops had more influence than other ones. The question then is whether or not any of these first-century bishops were considered to have worldwide jurisdiction and, if so, by whose authority. The facts say "No" to the universal jurisdiction of any bishop, and the idea of Apostolic Succession has nothing to do with Christ's intention. Papal Supremacy is only a human explanation of the growth of the influence of the Roman church, something that happened for purely human reasons, an attempt to justify and support that development by claiming Christ as the originator of it rather than the socio-historical factors that really were responsible. We see the same thing today. When controversies arise in church administration, it always makes for a better and almost unassailable argument to say that the Holy Spirit was leading us into this than to say that the leaders decided to it for good order, fairness, expediency, or whatever is the real reason.

It would be very difficult for me to agree more.

JacktheCatholic · May 16, 2007

Ethan_Fetch said:
There is really no reason outside of sheer partisan posturing to believe that Peter wasn't in Rome leading the church there and that he died there as well.

Peter and Paul left two very great relics in Rome. God Bless them and the Catholic Church.

JacktheCatholic · May 16, 2007

The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou -- throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. Thus we meet such phrases as thethe catholic resurrection (Justin Martyr), "the catholic goodness of God" (Tertullian), "the four catholic winds" (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of "the general resurrection", "the absolute or universal goodness of God", "the four principal winds", etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed to merikos (partial) or idios (particular), and one familiar example of this conception still survives in the ancient phrase "Catholic Epistles" as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but to the Church at large. - New Advent

The Catholic Church is the One True Faith because it is Jesus' church and will stand against all evil til the end of time.

The line of Popes show this heritage all the wway back to Jesus with Peter being the first and then Linus the second. We also have mention of Linus in the New Testament.

Great stuff! The Catholic Church has such great history!!!

I love the Catholic Church.

Peace and God Bless!

Jack

simonthezealot · May 16, 2007

Ethan_Fetch said:
There is really no reason outside of sheer partisan posturing to believe that Peter wasn't in Rome leading the church there and that he died there as well.

Most early writings indicate both Peter AND Paul, leaving then the obvious , whom was incharge? either, neither or both?

Ethan_Fetch · May 16, 2007

simonthezealot said:
Most early writings indicate both Peter AND Paul, leaving then the obvious , whom was incharge? either, neither or both?

I'm not sure it's a question of being in charge.

We're conditioned by more strident Catholic voices to see everything in terms of a consolidated and authoritative magisterium with one man at the helm.

I am not at all sure that it was like that in first century Rome (in fact I am rather convinced of the opposite).

As I've said, I am not even sure they had Bishops then if by that we mean an office distinct from that of Presbyter.

I tend to think of Peter and Paul both being in Rome at the same time and both dying there at about the same time as having similar prestige in the Christian community.

They were very different personalities of course and Paul admits that his apostleship was as one born late, but I really doubt that first century Christians were wringing their hands over which of them should be "in charge". And I am quite sure that Peter and Paul didn't get into a custody battle.

I really don't think it was an issue for them.

JacktheCatholic · May 16, 2007

simonthezealot said:
Most early writings indicate both Peter AND Paul, leaving then the obvious , whom was incharge? either, neither or both?

Peter and Paul were/are both held in very high accord.

But they both left Linus as the higher priest.

Peter was known for evangelizing the Jewish and Paul for the gentiles. There is also reference made to the KEYS more than once by early church fathers. Of course it is written in a way that shows the audience would understand the meaning of the KEYS with out any explanation. It is also made clear that ONLY PETER received the KEYS.

LivingWordUnity · May 16, 2007

Tyndale said:
Hi, Trento. Could you tell me when Apostile Peter went to Rome, when he became Bishop of Rome?

It was a tradition of the Church that Peter died in Rome (crucified upside down) and was buried in Rome. This was confirmed by the discovery of his tomb in Rome. His remains are presently in Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome. If you look at the end of the gospel of John, Jesus gives us a clue that Peter's martyrdom would be by crucifixion.

Notice in the Acts of the Apostles that the final stop was Rome. I don't think this was a coincidence. Also, in the letters of Saint Paul to various churches, he is usually admonishing them for acting badly. But Paul only has good things to say about the Christians in Rome.

Tyndale said:
I believe if any biblical figure was the bishop of Rome it was Simon Magus and I have very good grounds for that being the case.

Simon Magus was a magician, not a Christian. So he could not have been a bishop of anything. It clearly says in the Bible that he was evil.

JacktheCatholic · May 17, 2007

LivingWordUnity said:
It was a tradition of the Church that Peter died in Rome (crucified upside down) and was buried in Rome. This was confirmed by the discovery of his tomb in Rome. His remains are presently in Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome.

I visited a church in my town that has a relic of St Peter. Very very cool to be there.

Albion · May 17, 2007

Ethan_Fetch said:
We don't really know that at all. In the Bible the titles of Bishop and Elder are used to describe the same office. See Titus 1:5-9

Well, yes, we do know that (i.e. bishops as presiding elders). We know it from the historical record. I did not mean that we know if from the pages of the New Testament. The Bible is history, but it is not the only historical evidence of the early church's doings.

Anyway, while bishops and elders are referred to interchangably as you indicated, the fact of one of them presiding doesn't mean -- as later came to be the case -- that this makes him something better than an elder or that he's of a superior order.

(Papacy) it was part of the whole argument since the main idea I was responding to was the conclusion that Peter ordained Linus to succeed him who, in turn ordained Anacletus who in turn ordained Clement, etc. i.e. That Rome has always had a succession of ruling Bishops in descent from Peter and that this is somehow historically verifiable. It actually isn't.

I appreciate that, but my own view is that in discussions like this one it is not a good idea to hang our hats entirely on whether or not Peter-to-Linus-to-whomever is verifiable. EVEN IF IT WERE verifiable, that lineage itself doesn't prove anything at all about the claims of the bishops of Rome to universal jurisdiction.

A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

Exercise daily -- walk with the Lord.

Veteran

Facilitator

Veteran

Facilitator

Veteran

Facilitator

God bless!

Facilitator

God bless!

Ave Maria, Gratia plena!

Veteran

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

Veteran

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Facilitator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency