A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[b4uris]

Bad analogy in several ways. First, the books of the New Testament were received as inspired long before the canonization of the Bible.

Yes, but there was no clear cut concensus on which ones were.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Yes, but there was no clear cut concensus on which ones were.

Yes, some churches were using different Gospels then the four we know today.

 

[Albion]

Yes, but there was no clear cut concensus on which ones were.

There was very little disagreement-- unless you are speaking of the Gnostic gospels, which I think you were not.

 

[disasm]

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.

From the church history I've been reading from the Orthodox mindset, the early church acknowledged Peter as Bishop of Rome and having primacy of all the bishops, but only in the sense of first among equals, or in other words, with no mention of supremacy. The supremacy didn't come up until Charlemagne wanted to arise as King/Emperor, and knowing the East would never accept him, pressured the Bishop to claim supremacy over all Bishops and to give him his power.

The infallibility wasn't even brought up at this time. That was nearer to the schism when the pope sent some legates to anethematize the Church and Constantinople.

I got most of this information from The Orthodox Church, by Bishop Kallistos, and I read it a month ago so it's not quite fresh in my memory, but this is the basic gist of the Orthodox position of the primacy of the pope.

Sam

 

[PastorMikeJ]

Tyndale, you can't be serious. I would name all 265 Popes if I had the time. what is it you don't get, or perhaps in denial with?

and would you be naming the popes that sat in France and Spain while a pope sat in Rome?

 

[Rick Otto]

and would you be naming the popes that sat in France and Spain while a pope sat in Rome?

Anyone heard of the Old Catholic Church?
http://www.oldcatholic.com/

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Anyone heard of the Old Catholic Church?
http://www.oldcatholic.com/

I was curious whom the old catholics" are and did some reading...

the last sentence in the article was "All things considered, Old Catholicism has practically ceased to exist. It is no longer of any public importance."

 

[JasonV]

I was curious whom the old catholics" are and did some reading...

the last sentence in the article was "All things considered, Old Catholicism has practically ceased to exist. It is no longer of any public importance."

I would argue that the last sentence of the article was dead wrong.

Considering it's numbers, Old Catholics all told can't be more than a Million, but it's numbers are increasing steadily as more and more people turn away from more mainstream denominations. It's a very viable alternative for those who are "high church" minded, yet perhaps more forgiving on matters of theology.

You might want to read this article, and check out the scores of links at the bottom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church

 

[Trento]

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.

If we find the See of Rome from the foundation of Christianity entertaining and deciding cases of appeal from the Oriental churches; if we find that her decision was final and irrevocable, we must conclude that the supremacy of Rome over all the churches is an undeniable fact.

Illustrations!


About the year 190 the question regarding the proper day for celebrating Easter was agitated in the East, and referred to Pope St. Victor I . St. Victor directs the Eastern churches, for the sake of uniformity, to conform to the practice of the West, and his instructions are universally followed .

Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, about the middle of the third century, having heard that the Patriarch of Alexandria erred on some points of faith, demands an explanation of the suspected Prelate, who, in obedience to his superior, promptly vindicates his own orthodoxy.

St. Athanasius, the great patriarch of Alexandria, appeals in the fourth century to Pope Julius I, from an unjust decision rendered against him by the Oriental Bishops, and the Pope reverses the sentence of the Eastern Council.


St. Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea, in the same century has recourse in his afflictions to the protection of Pope Damasus.


St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, appeals in the beginning of the fifth century to Pope Innocent I for a redress of grievances inflicted on him by several Eastern Prelates, and by the Empress Eudoxia of Constantinople.


St. Cyril appeals to Pope Celestine against Nestorius; Nestorius, also, appeals to the same Pontiff, who takes the side of Cyril .

We see Prelates most eminent for their sanctity and learning occupying the highest position in the Eastern Church, and consequently far removed from the local influences of Rome, appealing in every period of the early Church from the decisions of their own Bishops and their Councils to the supreme arbitration of the Holy See.

It is a most remarkable fact that every nation hitherto converted from Paganism to Christianity since the days of the Apostles, has received the light of faith from missionaries who were either especially commissioned by the See of Rome, or sent by Bishops in open communion with that See. This historical fact admits of no exception. Let me particularize.

Ireland's Apostle is St. Patrick. Who commissioned him? Pope St. Celestine, in the fifth century.


St. Palladius is the Apostle of Scotland. Who sent him? The same Pontiff, Celestine.


The Anglo-Saxons received the faith from St. Augustine, a Benedictine monk, as all historians, Catholic and non-Catholic, testify. Who empowered Augustine to preach? Pope Gregory I, at the end of the sixth century.


St. Remigius established the faith in France, at the close of the fifth century. He was in active communion with the See of Peter.



Flanders received the Gospel in the seventh century from St. Eligius, who acknowledged the supremacy of the reigning Pope.

Germany and Bavaria venerate as their Apostle St. Boniface, who is popularly known in his native England by his baptismal name of Winfrid. He was commissioned by Pope Gregory II, in the beginning of the eighth century, and was consecrated Bishop by the same Pontiff.

In the ninth century two saintly brothers, Cyril and Methodius, evangelized Russia, Sclavonia, Moravia and other parts of Northern Europe. They recognized the supreme authority of Pope Nicholas I and of his successors, Adrian II and John VIII.

All the other nations of Europe, having been converted before the Reformation, received likewise the light of faith from Roman Catholic Missionaries , because Europe then recognized only one Christian Chief. How ingenious was the Church to marry their virtues with the virtues of high Roman civilization and incorporate both within the Church, consecrating formerly barbarian swords for Christian ends, reconciling barbarian concepts of honor and loyalty with Catholic concepts of faith and fidelity.I refer to the Dark Age newly Catholic tribes as Bikers for the Bishop of Rome.
It was the Church with Papal authority that gave us chivalry, turning barbarian high spirits to useful ends.
It was Protestantism that it broke this Church check and guide on the martial spirit by saying that the power of the state was scriptural and that the power of the Church was not.

That was a terrible regression. It sanctified the idea that might makes right, and the idea that the Church was of marginal importance to society, civilization, and politics. It undid the work of centuries. Where once the Roman emperor, commander of all Rome’s legions, could be forced to do penance by the Bishop of Milan, as the Emperor Theodosius was compelled to do by St. Ambrose, after the Reformation the Church’s check on state power was abolished. If any institution was not surprised by the twentieth century being a century of genocide and two world wars, it was the Church. The Church predicted that this was the path that was being laid by the Reformation, Revolution, Liberalism, Secularism, and Statism, all of which inevitably followed one after the other, as the Church saw they would. ​

 

[Albion]

If we find the See of Rome from the foundation of Christianity entertaining and deciding cases of appeal from the Oriental churches; if we find that her decision was final and irrevocable, we must conclude that the supremacy of Rome over all the churches is an undeniable fact.

Uh, no. Not even if that were the case would we be required to conclude that there is a line of Popes. All that this would show is that the bishop of Rome held a position of regard or influence, not that it was Christ-ordained or from the beginning...which I am sure is part of your contention.

However, since there is not any such leadership in operation, regardless of the authorization or lack of one, the point is moot. But, let's see what you have for us.

Illustrations!


About the year 190 the question regarding the proper day for celebrating Easter was agitated in the East, and referred to Pope St. Victor I .

I beg your pardon. You began with the proposition that I'd have to agree to a Papacy if "we find from the foundation of Christianity" such a role being played. AD 190--a century and a half after Christ--is hardly "from the foundation of Christianity. It is within a couple of generations as long as the United States has existed.

Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, about the middle of the third century,

More of the same. But we know that the bishop of Rome asserted his power in time. We know that he came to play a certain role. What we are interested in is whether the Apostolic Church believed it proper...and you have yet to produce one thing from that period!

St. Athanasius, the great patriarch of Alexandria, appeals in the fourth century

Worse yet.

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, appeals in the beginning of the fifth century to Pope Innocent

Now we are supposed to believe that the bishop of Rome was chosen by Christ to lead because men 400 years later accorded him a position of influence!?

In short, all you have shown is something we readily admit, i.e., that the Diocese of Rome gradually succeeded in asserting itself, aided by its relative size, wealth, and position as the Roman Capitol, as leader over most of the other churches and bishops. This took many centuries to accomplish and was not totally accepted even by the time of the Great Schism. What you have not come close to demonstrating is that Christ had this in mind, or that the Church believed this from the beginning.

 

[Rick Otto]

fuels revisionist history, sweeping monopolistic power grabs both political & ecclesiological, the holding of scripture hostage, anti-literacy, witholding of the Eucharistic cup, and all the other problems that resulted in the Dark Ages, right under the proverbial rug of myth & fraud.

 

[Trento]

Uh, no. Not even if that were the case would we be required to conclude that there is a line of Popes. All that this would show is that the bishop of Rome held a position of regard or influence, not that it was Christ-ordained or from the beginning...which I am sure is part of your contention.

Jesus builds the Church upon the person of Peter.

15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven

After Peter communicated the Father’s revelation, Jesus renamed Simon to Peter, declared that He would build the Church upon the rock of Peter, gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and invested Peter with the singular authority to infallibly bind and loose (since what Peter binds or looses on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven).

Only Peter knew Christ to be the Son of God. The other “disciples” got it wrong That is why Jesus conferred upon Peter alone the special privileges of the keys and the singular authority to bind and loose.It was precisely because God gave Peter a divine revelation and Peter was able to infallibly communicate that revelation that Jesus chooses to build His Church upon Peter. God intruded into the mind of Peter and gave Him this infallible truth, and Peter was able to orally communicate that truth infallibly to Jesus and the other apostles. As Jesus indicates, it was not because of Peter’s own abilities or worthiness. It was also not because of Peter’s faith.

Jesus is the ultimate authority, He has delegated to Peter the authority to rule the Church in His place as His Vicar, through the power of the keys. Jesus delegates His authority to Peter, but does not relinquish it. Jesus is still in charge, and Peter is directly accountable to Jesus for his actions. Jesus gave us many parables about how the Master would leave his land to his subjects, and then come back and render an account (see Mt 21:33-44; 25:14-30; Mk 12:1-11; Lk 16:1-10; 19:11-27; 20:9-18). This is precisely what Jesus will do with the leaders He has placed over the Church, beginning with Peter and his successors. Peter himself knew this all too well when he wrote “For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?” (1 Pet 4:17).

I beg your pardon. You began with the proposition that I'd have to agree to a Papacy if "we find from the foundation of Christianity" such a role being played. AD 190--a century and a half after Christ--is hardly "from the foundation of Christianity. It is within a couple of generations as long as the United States has existed.

.

Protestant Philip Schaff states in History of the Christian Church, volume 2 (Eerdmans, 1910)

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states --

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked, gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, page 158)​

"Rome was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a resort of all sects and parties. It attracted from every direction what was true and false in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced in the prospect of suffering for Christ in the centre of the world; Polycarp repaired hither to settle with Anicetus the paschal controversy; Justin Martyr presented there his defense of Christianity to the emperors, and laid down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian conceded to that church a position of singular pre-eminence. Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese." (Schaff, page 157)


Protestant J.B. Lightfoot Church historian scholar-- commenting on Clements same letter to the Cornithians A D 90

'It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal dominion. And yet undoubtedly this is the case'​

St. Clement of Rome, pg 698.​

Protestant 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: ​

[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 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​

Protestant Historical scholar Harnack says about Rome,​

Ignatius is our first external witness in regard to the Roman Church in 110AD. After making allowances for exaggeration of language in his letter to the Romans, it remains clear that Ignatius assigns a de facto primacy to the Roman Church among its sister churches and that he knew of an energetic and habitual activity of this church in protecting and instructing other churches. The Church and Infallibility pg. 140 (c. 1954​

Taking into account the phenomenon of development, the notion of primacy needs to be established first. The Church of Rome enjoyed a Primacy over the other Churches from the earliest period for which we have records with indications that this priority was not an innovation. Dr. Harnack claimed that "The Roman Church from the end of the first century possessed a de facto primacy in Christendom" (Mission und Ausbreitung pg. 398). ​

​

 

[Albion]

Jesus builds the Church upon the person of Peter.

1. Benedict XVI is not Peter, you will agree. You are still lacking any basis for the presumption that Peter could pass anything like this on.

2. "Builds...upon Peter?" If Peter is to play a key role in the spread of the Gospel (i.e. builds up the Church), such as when he was responsible for converting thousands on Pentecost, this has nothing to do with later claims of authority over the other successors of the Apostles.

gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven

...and not to anyone else, such as a later bishop of Rome. But you should know that "keys," like many other allusions in scripture, are open to various intenpretations. Since keys open things, and Peter opened the eyes of the multitudes on Pentecose, becoming the first to bring in a real surge of new disciples, and thanks to a special, miraculous gift of tongues, this is the most likely interpretation according to many Bible scholars.

God intruded into the mind of Peter and gave Him this infallible truth, and Peter was able to orally communicate that truth infallibly to Jesus and the other apostles.

And where would be find that in scripture?

As Jesus indicates, it was not because of Peter’s own abilities or worthiness. It was also not because of Peter’s faith.

You just said that it was ("Only Peter knew Christ to be the Son of God. The other “disciples” got it wrong That is why Jesus conferred upon Peter alone .")

Protestant Philip Schaff states in History of the Christian Church, volume 2 (Eerdmans, 1910)

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states --

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked, gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, page 158)​

​

​

​

I can imagine that taking upon himself such authority would be considered surprising all right. Presumptuous, too. That's what is being said there. There is nothing in that passage which suggests that he was entitled to this or that the other churches acknowledged any Christ-given authority to do it.

"Rome was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a resort of all sects and parties. It attracted from every direction what was true and false in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced in the prospect of suffering for Christ in the centre of the world; Polycarp repaired hither to settle with Anicetus the paschal controversy; Justin Martyr presented there his defense of Christianity to the emperors, and laid down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian conceded to that church a position of singular pre-eminence. Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese." (Schaff, page 157)

"Acted with an air of authority." Yes. Not with authority but with an air of authority, meaning a self-assumed authority.

That's because of the prominence of the city of Rome (as mentioned earlier). The bishops of Rome wanted to parlay the fame and importance of Rome to their advantage by acting as though both political and spiritual authority came with the religious leadership of the capitol of the Empire.

That's what the other citations are saying also. Note that not one of yours says anything about Christ or the Church being in accord with this trend, just that the Roman bishop was asserting it. In time, some of it worked and some Christians began to agree, but this has not one thing to do with whether this assumption of power over a period of centuries was what the earliest Christians believed right or that it eminated from Christ.

 

[Trento]

1

...and not to anyone else, such as a later bishop of Rome. But you should know that "keys," like many other allusions in scripture, are open to various intenpretations. Since keys open things, and Peter opened the eyes of the multitudes on Pentecose, becoming the first to bring in a real surge of new disciples, and thanks to a special, miraculous gift of tongues, this is the most likely interpretation according to many Bible scholars.

.

Well according Protestant Bibical scholars here is what they say.

And what about the "keys of the kingdom"? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.

(F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Is 22:22) . . . Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house . . . So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom.

(William Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975, vol. 2, 144-145)

In biblical and Judaic usage handing over the keys does not mean appointment as a porter but carries the thought of full authorization (cf. Mt. 13:52; Rev. 3:7) . . . The implication is that Jesus takes away this authority from the scribes and grants it to Peter.

(J. Jeremias, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, abridgement of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, 440)


The prime minister, more literally 'major-domo,' was the man called in Hebrew 'the one who is over the house,' a term borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace functionary . . .

The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the prime minister's power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace, which involves access to the king . . . Peter might be portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim . . . What else might this broader power of the keys include? It might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline; post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge; legislative powers; and the power of governing.

(Peter in the New Testament, Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House/New York: Paulist Press, 1973, 96-97. Common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars)


Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God's people.

(Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)

Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole). The image of 'keys' (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (cf. Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church . . . , but an authority derived from a 'delegation' of God's sovereignty.

(R.T. France; in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 256)


The opening words of v.22, with their echo of 9:6, emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it [possession of the keys], to be used in the king's interests. The 'shutting' and 'opening' mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18).

(New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 603)


For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are "over the house," "steward," or "governor." In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matt 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:

1) "Master of the palace" {Jerusalem Bible / New American Bible}
2) "In charge of the palace" {New International Version}
3) "Master of the household" {New Revised Standard Version}
4) "In charge of the royal household" {New American Standard Bible}
5) "Comptroller of the household" {Revised English Bible}
6) "Governor of the palace" {Moffatt} ​

As the robe and the baldric, mentioned in the preceding verse, were the ensigns of power and authority, so likewise was the key the mark of office, either sacred or civil. This mark of office was likewise among the Greeks, as here in Isaiah, borne on the shoulder. In allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut. Our Saviour, therefore, has upon a similar occasion made use of a like manner of expression, Matt 16:19; and in Rev 3:7 has applied to himself the very words of the prophet.

(Adam Clarke, [Methodist], Commentary on the Bible, abridged ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967 [orig. 1832], 581)

In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .

So Peter, in T.W. Manson's words, is to be 'God's vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God' (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p.205).

(New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018)

 

[mont974x4]

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.

except that no such succession is called for in Scripture. Peter was never called a pope. Linus isn't ever mentioned in Scripture that I can find.

 

[Albion]

Well according Protestant Bibical scholars here is what they say.

And what about the "keys of the kingdom"? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.

...assuming that this comparison is valid, that is.

It's an interesting interpretation, but was Peter given political authority, was he made royalty? No.

The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut,

No, that's what keys do! It doesn't require any comparison to David--and an awkward comparison it is, as explained above--for us to see that a key opens things. So now turn to this obvious follow-up: "What did Peter open?"

Being "Pope," if that were the case, doesn't open anything.

 

[Trento]

except that no such succession is called for in Scripture. Peter was never called a pope. Linus isn't ever mentioned in Scripture that I can find.

2Tim.3 [19]
Greet Prisca and Aq'uila, and the household of Onesiph'orus.

[20] Eras'tus remained at Corinth; Troph'imus I left ill at Mile'tus.
[21] Do your best to come before winter. Eubu'lus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren.
[22]
The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.

If you knew your Christian historyyou would know that Linus became the Bishop of Rome. All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutheru (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses. The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. Irenaeus claims Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his II Timothy 4:21.


Cardinal Newman's remark that "to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant". Protestantism understands this, which is why it created a religion based solely on the Bible.The argument from history is virtually irrefutable – it is in fact what brought Newman into the Catholic Church.

 

[mont974x4]

Thanks Trento!


Now, where is it said that Peter was a pope and that such titles meant anything and that it is passed on as the RCC teaches?

History written outside of the Bible is colored by our own biases and should rarely be taken at face value.

 

[Trento]

No, that's what keys do! It doesn't require any comparison to David--and an awkward comparison it is, as explained above--for us to see that a key opens things. So now turn to this obvious follow-up: "What did Peter open?" [/SIZE]

Being "Pope," if that were the case, doesn't open anything.

After theLord makes Peter a shepherd, telling him three times to "feed my lambs" and "tend my sheep."
Peter unlocks the door to the Gentiles because he is the one with the keys. Unlocking the door to the Gentiles is a divine act that only Jesus can do, and yet Peter performs the act. Why? Because Jesus delegated divine authority to Peter, and Peter acts in Jesus’ name. Also, note that the authority to “bind and loose” is not limited to “unlocking the door to the Gentiles.” It also refers to declaring dogmatic and disciplinary decrees as well as forgiving and retaining sin (which is set forth in the passage John 20:21-23).

The Greek uses the passive voice which indicates that that heaven is receiving the binding and loosing from Peter. This is an incredible statement that Jesus makes. Heaven will ratify Peter’s binding and loosing decisions. But in order for this to be true, Peter must be prevented from teaching error, for God cannot lie. Thus, God must penetrate the mind of Peter (just as He did when Peter confessed Jesus as the Messiah) and prevent him from teaching error. Otherwise, Jesus could not make such a sweeping promise. All this supports the Catholic understanding of the papacy.

 

[Rick Otto]

Anybody who wields Truth righteously, does so in the name of Truth, and it is that Truth that sets us free, not the man wielding it.