A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

Albion · May 25, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
You do realize that up until King Henry VIII wanted a divorce and could not get it from Rome that it was accepted that the Pope was the Authority?

Even the Queen afterwards saw this.

I wonder how Anglicanism understands this change for the King having that 'Authority'?

What difference would it make? You and people from the Sixteenth Century can equally be misled by an account that was merely an invention and not what the First Christians believed at all.

These people also were taught that the Ecocentric theory of the universe was a heresy and false.

How Anglicanism 'understands that Authority' is that Christ is the head and one foundation of the Church.

JacktheCatholic · May 25, 2007

Albion said:
What difference would it make? You obviously believe it yourself and are as wrong about it as they.

Why shouldn't others who were raised to believe something that was created centuries after the fact had been always believed? These people also were taught that the Ecocentric theory of the universe was a heresy and false.

A Heresy???

You sure about that?

Albion · May 25, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
A Heresy???

You sure about that?

Oh yes, although I'd have to check back to be certain of when it stopped being considered as such. Naturally, if anyone said that certain suppositions about Creation or events in the OT would not have been exactly as thought by the people involved, it would seem to be a denunciation of Bible passages. That's what happened to Galileo, too. But it also happened to Copernicus' writings which were permitted to be read as interesting guesswork so long as no reader actually believed the concept.

JacktheCatholic · May 25, 2007

Albion said:
Oh yes, although I'd have to check back to be certain of when it stopped being considered as such. Naturally, if anyone said that certain suppositions about Creation or events in the OT would not have been exactly as thought by the people involved, it would seem to be a denunciation of Bible passages. That's what happened to Galileo, too. But it also happened to Copernicus' writings which were permitted to be read as interesting guesswork so long as no reader actually believed the concept.

Are you speaking of the Copernican Theory?

Albion · May 25, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
Are you speaking of the Copernican Theory?

My apologies! I wrote "Ecocentric" when I meant to say "Heliocentric." I don't know why.

No doubt that didn't help you with what I was trying to explain (that if 16th century Englishmen believed in a falsehood--as they did in many matters we now know better--you can't say that it proves anything one way or another about the origins of the Papacy. If they didn't know that the Earth is round, for example, they weren't necessarily experts on Papal history either).

JacktheCatholic · May 25, 2007

Albion said:
My apologies! I wrote "Ecocentric" when I meant to say "Heliocentric." I don't know why.

No doubt that didn't help you with what I was trying to explain (that if 16th century Englishmen believed in a falsehood--as they did in many matters we now know better--you can't say that it proves anything one way or another about the origins of the Papacy. If they didn't know that the Earth is round, for example, they weren't necessarily experts on Papal history either).

"Context"

I hear and say that a lot with defending Catholicism.

The Catholic Church never claimed the teaching to be heretical but it did say it boardered on it. But why? There was a faction that was against religion (in general) and they prescribed to this theory immediately and used it as a tool to try and show religion as a lie. Of course Galileo obeyed the church and is recognized for his contributions then and today. But there were affairs of the Church that were under attack in the 16th century and the Church was defending itself.

I firmly believe science and religion co-exist. I known that the Catholic Church embraces science. To me, science is a way to better understand God's creation.

Bur I fail to see how this shows King Henry VIII was justified in any logical way by proclaiming himself supreme in the Anglican church and dismissing centuries of Tradition?

Albion · May 26, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
"Context"

The Catholic Church never claimed the teaching to be heretical but it did say it boardered on it. But why? There was a faction that was against religion (in general) and they prescribed to this theory immediately and used it as a tool to try and show religion as a lie. Of course Galileo obeyed the church and is recognized for his contributions then and today.

Why then did the Inquisition, set up by the Council of Trent, sentence him to perpetual house arrest and to having his books banned? You are obviously incorrect in saying that the church considered him to have obeyed the church, etc.

But I fail to see how this shows King Henry VIII was justified in any logical way by proclaiming himself supreme in the Anglican church and dismissing centuries of Tradition?

That's the question you posed, but it has nothing to do with whether the Papacy was from the beginning or invented at a later stage. Right? Right. What if we say that Henry was not justified in any logical way in proclaiming himself head of the Church (but it took the action of the clergy and parliament, don't forget)? Either way, it still has nothing at all to do with where the Papacy came from--and that's the topic we are supposedly discussing.

Now, let's get back to what matters. WAS there, indeed, an unbroken line of bishops of Rome WHO WERE always believed by the Church worldwide to be the infallible leaders of Christianity and that they were so because of what Jesus said to Peter as recorded in Matthew? Well, no. We have only the theory that arose about 400 years after Christ and Peter that a single verse in the NT could be used to justify the assumption of power by the bishops of Rome that we have come to call the Papal office.

But if you don't know that history, start there.

JacktheCatholic · May 26, 2007

Albion said:
Why then did the Inquisition, set up by the Council of Trent, sentence him to perpetual house arrest and to having his books banned? You are obviously incorrect in saying that the church considered him to have obeyed the church, etc.

There were some falsehoods in his writings that were considered serious.

The corrections were made later and the church backed it.

Example: writing that the current theory is Fact when it is not.

Albion said:
That's the question you posed, but it has nothing to do with whether the Papacy was from the beginning or invented at a later stage. Right? Right.

Now, let's get back to what matters. WAS there, indeed, an unbroken line of bishops of Rome WHO WERE always believed by the Church worldwide to be the infallible leaders of Christianity and that they were so because of what Jesus said to Peter as recorded in Matthew? Well, no. We have only the theory that arose about 400 years after Christ and Peter that a single verse in the NT could be used to justify the assumption of power by the bishops of Rome that we have come to call the Papal office.

But if you don't know that history, start there.

Was there EVER a time that the CHURCH GLOBALLY believed in the INFALABILITY of the POPE?

The answer is more complicated than you state.

First, are we speaking of 'church' as the teachings of the Catholic Church? Are these teachings to be considered as doctrinal and dogmatic only?

Secondly, is the church the physical representation of Jesus' church or the spiritual entity of the church (meaning all baptized souls still of the Body of Christ)?

Of course these are only a few of the questions that are needed to properly answer this question.

But to answer in one respect.

Ans: As a global church, with respect to all Christians (any that consider themselves a Christian), there has never been a time that we know of where all people of the church considered the Pope infallible.

*** In regards to the Catholic Church this has been the teaching and understanding since Jesus started his church. This is backed both scripturally and Traditionally.

Albion · May 26, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
There were some falsehoods in his writings that were considered serious.

OK, the thread is not about Galileo or Henry VII.

Was there EVER a time that the CHURCH GLOBALLY believed in the INFALABILITY of the POPE?

No.

But to answer in one respect.

Ans: As a global church, with respect to all Christians (any that consider themselves a Christian), there has never been a time that we know of where all people of the church considered the Pope infallible.

Bear in mind that the primary question is whether there was a belief in the Pope at all during the Apostolic Age, as opposed to it being a later creation. That the Pope of any time should be considered Infallible as well as having universal jurisdiction is of a much later origin.

*** In regards to the Catholic Church this has been the teaching and understanding since Jesus started his church. This is backed both scripturally and Traditionally.

Talk is cheap, they say, and anyone can repeat what is written in his own denomination's catechism. What you are asked to do is verify the accuracy of what you just posted, not just to post your belief.

We already know that this is what you believe; the question is whether there is any truth to what the Roman Catholic Church says about it and which you, therefore, assent to. I have told you that there is no such evidence of this so-called Tradition, that the Papacy was a creation of a later time, that the Fathers do not support the idea of Peter being above the other Apostles, that Matthew was not even used as a claim until much later, and ... incidentally also... that the idea of Papal Infallibility was similarly unknown in the first church. All that is a matter of historical record, not denominational theory.

Rick Otto · May 26, 2007

RccWarrior said:
Some people on these forums have questioned that there is no evidence of an "unbroken succession" from St. Peter until now. I would like to clarify that up with this:
St. Peter 67
St. Linus 67-76
St. Anacletus 76-88
St. Clement I, 88-97
St. Evaristus 97-105
St. Alexander I, 105-115
St. Sixtus I, 115-125
St. Telesphorus 125-36
St. Hyginus 136-40
St. Pius I, 140-55
St. Anicetus 155-66
St. Soter 166-75
St. Eleuterius 175-89
St. Victor I, 189-99
St. Zephyrinus 199-217
St. Callistus I, 217-22
St. Urban I, 222-30

And the list goes on in unbroken succession. All the way, 265 Popes later to Pope Benedict himself.

The list itself is not evidence.

Albion · May 26, 2007

Rick Otto said:
The list itself is not evidence.

That's right, but perhaps we should say that the list is not a list of Popes or evidence of there being Popes. Every bishop in the world can supply you with a similar list showing descent from one Apostle or another. This one is just the list of the bishops of Rome, as best as we can ascertain it.

yeshuaslavejeff · May 27, 2007

hmmm, "...as best .." ??

it only took 15 seconds to find this:

http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/peter_as_pope.php

Albion · May 27, 2007

yeshuaslavejeff said:
hmmm, "...as best .." ??

it only took 15 seconds to find this:

http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/peter_as_pope.php

Yes, as best as we can ascertain the line. There is some debate over whether Linus was the second bishop of Rome, and there are some other questions concerning the line. I guess you found one opinion among many online and in fifteen seconds. It will take longer to research the whole issue. But that is only a minor point.

The more important one concerns whether the men in this line--even if there were not disputes about the lineage--were seen by the Christian community during their lifetimes to have the power, authority, and jurisdiction that the Roman Catholic Church claims for them. If these men were not holders of the authority that defines Popes, it makes no difference one way or the other who is in the line or if it is without breaks, etc.

For example, if I were to list, in order, all the Dalai Lamas of history and then say that these were the rulers of England...

"See? the line is intact without any breaks so we know that the power never was lost," I would hope you'd say the obvious, i.e. that this fact about them still doesn't have anything to do with the government of England. That's the nature of the question concerning the origins of the Papacy.

Rick Otto · May 27, 2007

The one opinion among many, is quite in conformity with the many it is among.
Indeed,power percieved is power achieved, but did they have the authority?

Albion · May 28, 2007

Rick Otto said:
The one opinion among many, is quite in conformity with the many it is among.

Well, I don't know what that means, Rick. We all know that you can find anything online and, further, that there is an abundance of pro-Catholic and an abundance of non-Catholic arguments online, all available within 15 seconds. Selecting one of them for posting doesn't prove anything.

Indeed,power percieved is power achieved, but did they have the authority?

But if we understand that the power was not achieved until centuries after Jesus spoke to Peter, does it not prove that the power was not from Christ? Theoretically, we could say that it just took the Church hundreds of years to wake up to or understand the truth which is the truth nevertheless, except that this is also the Church that bases its beliefs on consistency and proves them by saying "it always was this way," and that Tradition "is from the beginning," etc. That's the familiar test used against Protestants in order to"prove" that Protestantism cannot be right even if its beliefs accord with scripture.

Therefore, it cannot be both at once--true but late in being known, and true by reason of a continuity from the start until now.

JacktheCatholic · Jun 1, 2007

Albion said:
But if we understand that the power was not achieved until centuries after Jesus spoke to Peter, does it not prove that the power was not from Christ?

Interesting question...

The New Testament was not compiled for several centuries. Does that mean God did not inspire them?

Christianity did not exist in the USA for many centuries. Does that mean Christ is not in those churches?

Like I said... interesting question.

Albion · Jun 1, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
Interesting question...

The New Testament was not compiled for several centuries. Does that mean God did not inspire them?

Bad analogy in several ways. First, the books of the New Testament were received as inspired long before the canonization of the Bible. This is not comparable to the Papal claims which we know for a fact were not accepted for centuries and then only in the West.

Second, you CAN ask if God inspired the books of the Bible before there was an official approval of all of them, but if that is the case, you have no argument against Protestantism which says the same thing--i.e. if it is right, if it is what God said or wants, it doesn't matter if we say it late. This is what you are trying to argue about canonization.

And your church does not argue that Matt 16 is the sole reason for believing in the Papacy. It also says that it always was the Church's teaching (Tradition). If that were so, I would not be asking you why the historical record does not support the claim and that even the Bishops of Rome did not use the Matthew verse in their own claims for hundreds of years.

JacktheCatholic · Jun 1, 2007

Albion said:
Bad analogy in several ways. First, the books of the New Testament were received as inspired long before the canonization of the Bible. This is not comparable to the Papal claims which we know for a fact were not accepted for centuries and then only in the West.

Second, you CAN ask if God inspired the books of the Bible before there was an official approval of all of them, but if that is the case, you have no argument against Protestantism which says the same thing--i.e. if it is right, if it is what God said or wants, it doesn't matter if we say it late. This is what you are trying to argue about canonization.

And your church does not argue that Matt 16 is the sole reason for believing in the Papacy. It also says that it always was the Church's teaching (Tradition). If that were so, I would not be asking you why the historical record does not support the claim and that even the Bishops of Rome did not use the Matthew verse in their own claims for hundreds of years.

SIGH...

If one were to backtrack this thread they would find numerous writings that support and verify the Catholic claim to the succession of Popes.

Sockroteez · Jun 7, 2007

What is the basis of the papal doctrine itself? Where does it say that only Peter's successors in Rome were to inherit Peter's 'Chair'? It is a very large leap to go from agreeing that Peter was the leader of the Apostles to saying that he, and all the successive Roman Bishops were to hold an essentially monarchical authority over the Church. The fact of the false document called 'The Donation of Constantine' which the papacy used, obviously knowing it was a forgery, shows that the supposed 'supremacy' of the Roman bishop is a false dogma.

Albion · Jun 7, 2007

JacktheCatholic said:
SIGH...

If one were to backtrack this thread they would find numerous writings that support and verify the Catholic claim to the succession of Popes.

You can stop the sighing, Jack. If you would backtrack on this thread, what you would find are clear and meaningful objections to the theory of Papal Supremacy--which you then ignored.

If there is a line, it doesn't make it a line of Popes. If these were Popes, why didn't they mention Matt 16 to establish their position (since it proves everything to your mind)? If Peter were the leader of the Apostles, why was James the chairman (the Papacy is, after all, the "chair" of the Church in its own interpretation of its role)? Why do many Fathers of the Church call James or Paul the real leader, not Peter? Why if the bishops of Rome thought themselves Popes, not to mention the view of other Christians, why is there no record of them acting this way for centuries after Christ? Why should we conclude that one particular successor bishop in Rome inherits what Christ gave to Peter, not the bishops of Antioch, for example, where Peter was first bishop?

The theory is full of holes. And it was never accepted by the Church Universal, whether in the first century, the fourth, the eleventh, or any other.

And you have passed over all of these very telling points rather than reply to them. That certainly doesn't constitute 'verifying' anything at all. You are where you began--with a claim.

A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

Facilitator

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Facilitator

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Facilitator

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Facilitator

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Facilitator

The Dude Abides

Facilitator

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Facilitator

The Dude Abides

Facilitator

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Facilitator

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Infrequent Passer-by

Facilitator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency