A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[RccWarrior]

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.

 

[Tyndale]

I can see clearly now. I'm afraid I'll need a wee bit more evidence than that friend.

 

[IamAdopted]

and the point of this?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

and the point of this?

That the lineage of the Popes is unbroken?

 

[RccWarrior]

I can see clearly now. I'm afraid I'll need a wee bit more evidence than that friend.

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?

 

[JonF]

This is a topic I am genuinely interested in, can you provide a source though please?

 

[JimfromOhio]

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?

Let's say from my own perspective. I don't deny the Christian History of the Catholic Church (as well as Eastern Orthodox Church). However, according to Christian history, there have been many Christians who disagreed with the Catholic "evolving" teachings and how some of the Popes have abused their authorities. I can go on and on. You might want to read my thread on this topic: "Division, Separatism"

 

[tulc]

Does your list contain these guys?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope
tulc(just wondering)

 

[JimfromOhio]

Does your list contain these guys?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope
tulc(just wondering)

Good point and thanks for sharing the link.

 

[Tyndale]

I don't even believe that Apostile Peter was the Bishop of Rome in the first place, 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.

Even within the Roman Catholic church there were difficulties in deciding who was successor after Peter. There were conflicting views whether it was St. Linus or St. Clement. I see that the problem must have been ironed out.

 

[VCViking]

Lol!

 

[E.C.]

Let's say from my own perspective. I don't deny the Christian History of the Catholic Church (as well as Eastern Orthodox Church). However, according to Christian history, there have been many Christians who disagreed with the Catholic "evolving" teachings and how some of the Popes have abused their authorities. I can go on and on. You might want to read my thread on this topic: "Division, Separatism"

I think the difference between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox history of "evolving" is the fact that the Seven Ecumenical Councils had helped the Church "evolve" because each was convened because there was an issue that had a crippling effect on the Church, so that issue needed to be examined, talked about and resolved.

The only thing is, in the East which was predominately what we now call Eastern Orthodox, quit evolving. However, in the West which was predominately what we now call Roman Catholic, things kept evolving.

The only time that I can recall when there was any change in the East after the Seven Ecumenical Councils, would be in the 17th century when Nikon, Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, introduced a few minor reforms. Things like making the Sign of the Cross with three fingers held together instead of two. No theological changes that I'm aware of.

 

[Letalis]

Moved to Church History.
​

 

[freespiritchurch]

OK, RCCwarrior, I'm going to try this one more time.

Your list wasn't put together until at least 150 AD, and its list of the first few Popes isn't historically accurate. The reason that this list and Tertullian's differ is that there wasn't any such thing as "the Bishop of Rome" for several decades at least after the foundation of the church. If there had been a bishop of Rome, he would have put his name on 1 Clement.

 

[Trento]

I don't even believe that Apostile Peter was the Bishop of Rome in the first place, 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.

Even within the Roman Catholic church there were difficulties in deciding who was successor after Peter. There were conflicting views whether it was St. Linus or St. Clement. I see that the problem must have been ironed out.

History Of The Christian Church


Volume II. Ante-Nicene Christiainity


by Philip Schaff Protestant Patristic Scholar






The whole number of popes, from the Apostle Peter to Leo XIII. (1878) is two hundred and sixty-three. This would allow about seven years on an average to each papal reign. The traditional twenty-five years of Peter were considered the maximum which none of his successors reached, except Pius IX., who reigned twenty-seven years (1846-1878).

 

[Tyndale]

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

 

[JimfromOhio]

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

Pssss... there are NO documental proofs that Peter ever went to Rome. The burden of proof is on them. There’s no apostolic succession through Peter; it is simply the interpretations determined by their own so-called Tradition.

 

[Trento]

Pssss... there are NO documental proofs that Peter ever went to Rome. The burden of proof is on them. There’s no apostolic succession through Peter; it is simply the interpretations determined by their own so-called Tradition.

John Norman Davidson Kelly. Protestant Canon of Chichester Cathedral and a Fellow of the British Academy; since 1966 I have been a member of the Academic Council of the Ecumenical Theological Institute, Jerusalem. My publications include EARLY CHRISTIAN CREEDS, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, THE EPISTLES OF PETER AND OF JUDE, and JEROME.


"Its certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where 'BABYLON' is a code-name for ROME, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter's companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome."


Shotwell and Loomis. While this may sound like a comedy team of the 1950's, they are Protestant a and authors of the massive study THE SEE OF PETER.

The First Epistle of Peter has been the fundamental text for the contention that Peter was in Rome. Its closing salutation, 'The church that is in Babylon....saluteth you' (1 Peter v,13), refers UNDOUBTEDLY to Rome. Babylon was then in ruins, and there was no tradition for five centuries that Peter had been there, whereas the tradition connecting him with Rome is one of the STRONGEST in the Church. Babylon is used for Rome in the Sibylline Oracles and in Revelation (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10).....
Upon the whole, there seems nothing improbable in the tradition and the belief of Catholic writers in St. Peter's early labors in Rome. His martyrdom there, at a later period, is vouched for by a fairly continuous line of references in the documents from Clement on."

THE SEE OF PETER (NY: Octagon Books, 1965) by James T. Shotwell and Louise Ropes Loomis, p. 56-57, 58-59


Editors of the Evangelical NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY 21st Century Edition (1994).

NBC: "In 5:13 the writer sends greetings from 'she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you'. This seems like a reference to the local church in Babylon, but it is unlikely that Peter would have gone to the former capital of Nebuchadnezzar's empire.
"By Peter's time it was a sparsely inhabited ruin (fulfilling Isaiah 14:23). In Rev 16:19 and 17:5 'Babylon' is used as a cryptic name for Rome, and Col 4:10 and Phm 24 (most likely written in Rome) show that Mark was there with Paul. In 2 Tim 4:11 Mark is in Asia Minor, and Paul sends for him to come, to Rome."

The fact that neither Peter nor Paul mentions the other in the list of those sending greetings from Rome merely suggests that they were not together at the time of writing their letters. All this points to the theory that Peter was writing from Rome, which is supported by the evidence of Tertullian (praescrip haeret, 36) and Eusebius (Eccl History, 2.25.8; 2.15.2 and 3.1.2-3)."

NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY (Intervarsity Press, 1994), p. 1370 edited by Donald Guthrie with D.A. Carson, R.T. France, J.A. Motyer, and G.J. Wenham

Liberal Protestant Scholar patristic scholar Adolph Harnack.
to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice."
Adolph Harnack cited in THE SEARCH FOR THE TWELVE APOSTLES by William Stuart McBirnie (Tyndale House, 1988), p. 63


New Testament Protestant scholar F.F. Bruce.


BRUCE: "That Peter as well as Paul was put to death at Rome under Nero is the UNANIMOUS testimony of Christian tradition so far as it touches this subject."
"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is CERTAIN; that they were claimed as co-founders of the Roman church and that this, together with their martyrdom there, conferred great religious (as distinct from political) prestige on that church, is likewise CERTAIN...."
NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY (Doubleday and Co, 1971) by F.F. Bruce, p. 403,410

German historian and archaeologist Hans Lietzmann.


LIETZMANN: "ALL the early sources...clearly suggest to us, namely, that Peter sojourned in Rome and died a martyr there. Any other hypothesis regarding Peter's death piles difficulty upon difficulty, and cannot be
supported by a single document."
PETER AND PAUL IN ROME cited in Bruce, p. 404


Church Luthern historian Jaroslav Pelikan.

PELIKAN: "The martyrdom of both Peter and Paul in Rome....belongs to [Christian] tradition. It has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have even contended that Peter was NEVER in Rome. But the archaeological researches of the Protestant historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullmann, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero.
"The account of Paul's martyrdom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism."
THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Abingdon Press, 1959) by Jaroslav Pelikan, p. 36-37

That famous anti-Catholic critic of last century Bishop Charles Gore of England.


GORE: "It is quite certain that he Peter died there [Rome] a martyr's death in the persecution under Nero (about A.D. 65)."
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS (Longmans, Green and Co, 1920 11th ed) by Charles Gore, p. 93-

The exhaustive study conducted by Daniel O'Connor.

O'CONNOR: "The almost complete silence of the New Testament, and in particular the silence of Paul's Epistle to the Romans and the Book of Acts, is NOT decisive evidence for or against the theory of a Roman residence of Peter. On the other hand, 1 Peter 5:13 IS plausibly interpreted as testifying to a Roman residence of the apostle."
"...it does seem highly probable that Peter did visit Rome. As has been stated previously, the tradition is too old and too unchallenged in antiquity to be challenged with any force in the present."
"...if the suggestions and implications which are drawn from certain of these early notices are studied with those of the later sources, there results a most persistent tradition which sets the martyrdom of Peter in Rome within the reign of Nero (most probably between A.D. 64 and 67)."
"In summary, it appears more plausible than not that: (1) Peter did reside in Rome at some time during his lifetime, most probably near the end of his life. (2) He was martyred there as a member of the Christian religion. (3) He was remembered in the traditions of the Church and in the erection of a simple monument near the place where he died. (4) His body was never recovered for burial by the Christian group which later...came to believe that what originally had marked the general area of his death also indicated the precise placement of his grave."
PETER IN ROME : The Literary, Liturgical, and Archaeological Evidence (Columbia University Press, 1969), by Daniel Wm O'Connor, p. 207-209

cited the testimony of Protestant Historical scholars acknowledging that the Catholic position was the one espoused in the ancient Church and throughout much of the 1500 years before the Reformation.

 

[JimfromOhio]

John Norman Davidson Kelly. Protestant Canon of Chichester Cathedral and a Fellow of the British Academy; since 1966 I have been a member of the Academic Council of the Ecumenical Theological Institute, Jerusalem. My publications include EARLY CHRISTIAN CREEDS, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, THE EPISTLES OF PETER AND OF JUDE, and JEROME.


"Its certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where 'BABYLON' is a code-name for ROME, and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter's companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him, with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome."


Shotwell and Loomis. While this may sound like a comedy team of the 1950's, they are Protestant a and authors of the massive study THE SEE OF PETER.

The First Epistle of Peter has been the fundamental text for the contention that Peter was in Rome. Its closing salutation, 'The church that is in Babylon....saluteth you' (1 Peter v,13), refers UNDOUBTEDLY to Rome. Babylon was then in ruins, and there was no tradition for five centuries that Peter had been there, whereas the tradition connecting him with Rome is one of the STRONGEST in the Church. Babylon is used for Rome in the Sibylline Oracles and in Revelation (14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10).....
Upon the whole, there seems nothing improbable in the tradition and the belief of Catholic writers in St. Peter's early labors in Rome. His martyrdom there, at a later period, is vouched for by a fairly continuous line of references in the documents from Clement on."

THE SEE OF PETER (NY: Octagon Books, 1965) by James T. Shotwell and Louise Ropes Loomis, p. 56-57, 58-59


Editors of the Evangelical NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY 21st Century Edition (1994).

NBC: "In 5:13 the writer sends greetings from 'she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you'. This seems like a reference to the local church in Babylon, but it is unlikely that Peter would have gone to the former capital of Nebuchadnezzar's empire.
"By Peter's time it was a sparsely inhabited ruin (fulfilling Isaiah 14:23). In Rev 16:19 and 17:5 'Babylon' is used as a cryptic name for Rome, and Col 4:10 and Phm 24 (most likely written in Rome) show that Mark was there with Paul. In 2 Tim 4:11 Mark is in Asia Minor, and Paul sends for him to come, to Rome."

The fact that neither Peter nor Paul mentions the other in the list of those sending greetings from Rome merely suggests that they were not together at the time of writing their letters. All this points to the theory that Peter was writing from Rome, which is supported by the evidence of Tertullian (praescrip haeret, 36) and Eusebius (Eccl History, 2.25.8; 2.15.2 and 3.1.2-3)."

NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY (Intervarsity Press, 1994), p. 1370 edited by Donald Guthrie with D.A. Carson, R.T. France, J.A. Motyer, and G.J. Wenham

Liberal Protestant Scholar patristic scholar Adolph Harnack.
to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice."
Adolph Harnack cited in THE SEARCH FOR THE TWELVE APOSTLES by William Stuart McBirnie (Tyndale House, 1988), p. 63


New Testament Protestant scholar F.F. Bruce.


BRUCE: "That Peter as well as Paul was put to death at Rome under Nero is the UNANIMOUS testimony of Christian tradition so far as it touches this subject."
"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is CERTAIN; that they were claimed as co-founders of the Roman church and that this, together with their martyrdom there, conferred great religious (as distinct from political) prestige on that church, is likewise CERTAIN...."
NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY (Doubleday and Co, 1971) by F.F. Bruce, p. 403,410

German historian and archaeologist Hans Lietzmann.


LIETZMANN: "ALL the early sources...clearly suggest to us, namely, that Peter sojourned in Rome and died a martyr there. Any other hypothesis regarding Peter's death piles difficulty upon difficulty, and cannot be
supported by a single document."
PETER AND PAUL IN ROME cited in Bruce, p. 404


Church Luthern historian Jaroslav Pelikan.

PELIKAN: "The martyrdom of both Peter and Paul in Rome....belongs to [Christian] tradition. It has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have even contended that Peter was NEVER in Rome. But the archaeological researches of the Protestant historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullmann, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero.
"The account of Paul's martyrdom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism."
THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Abingdon Press, 1959) by Jaroslav Pelikan, p. 36-37

That famous anti-Catholic critic of last century Bishop Charles Gore of England.


GORE: "It is quite certain that he Peter died there [Rome] a martyr's death in the persecution under Nero (about A.D. 65)."
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS (Longmans, Green and Co, 1920 11th ed) by Charles Gore, p. 93-

The exhaustive study conducted by Daniel O'Connor.

O'CONNOR: "The almost complete silence of the New Testament, and in particular the silence of Paul's Epistle to the Romans and the Book of Acts, is NOT decisive evidence for or against the theory of a Roman residence of Peter. On the other hand, 1 Peter 5:13 IS plausibly interpreted as testifying to a Roman residence of the apostle."
"...it does seem highly probable that Peter did visit Rome. As has been stated previously, the tradition is too old and too unchallenged in antiquity to be challenged with any force in the present."
"...if the suggestions and implications which are drawn from certain of these early notices are studied with those of the later sources, there results a most persistent tradition which sets the martyrdom of Peter in Rome within the reign of Nero (most probably between A.D. 64 and 67)."
"In summary, it appears more plausible than not that: (1) Peter did reside in Rome at some time during his lifetime, most probably near the end of his life. (2) He was martyred there as a member of the Christian religion. (3) He was remembered in the traditions of the Church and in the erection of a simple monument near the place where he died. (4) His body was never recovered for burial by the Christian group which later...came to believe that what originally had marked the general area of his death also indicated the precise placement of his grave."
PETER IN ROME : The Literary, Liturgical, and Archaeological Evidence (Columbia University Press, 1969), by Daniel Wm O'Connor, p. 207-209

They are not evidences but theories and beliefs. Evidences means burden of proofs. There are NO earlier documents that ever stated (to confirm) that Peter was ever in Rome.

 

[Trento]

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

According to the witness of our ancient Christian forefathers:

(1) Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).


(2) The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).


(3) Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).


(4) Hippolytus (225 AD) counts Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).


(5) Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as "the place of Peter" (Ep ad Anton), and as "the Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Pope Cornelius).


(6) Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope Stephen's claim to the "succession of Peter" and to the "Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Cyprian).



(7) Eusebius (314) says that Peter was "the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years" (Chron an 44), and calls Linus "first after Peter to obtain the episcopate" (Chron an 66). He also says that Victor was "the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter" (HE III, 4).


(8) The Council of Sardica "honors the memory of the Apostle Peter" in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).



(9) Athanasius (340's) calls Rome the "Apostolic Throne" -- a reference to the Apostle Peter as the first bishop to occupy that throne (Hist Arian ad Monarch 35).



(10) Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, "in which chair sat Peter himself." He also says how "Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair," which "is the first of the marks of the Church." (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).


(11) Pope Damasus (370) speaks of the "Apostolic chair" in which "the holy Apostle sitting, taught his successors how to guide the helm of the Church" (Ep ix ad Synod, Orient ap Theodoret V, 10). Damasus also states how "The first See is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church" and says how Rome received primacy not by the conciliar decisions of the other churches, but from the evangelic voice of the Lord, when He says, "Thou art Peter..." (Decree of Damasus 382).



(12) Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as "Peter's chair" and the Roman church where "Peter, first of the Apostles, first sat" (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).



(13) Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the "chair of Peter" and the "Apostolic chair," and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1).


(14) Augustine (c. 400) tells us to number the bishops of Rome from the chair of Peter itself (in Ps contra Part Donat), and speaks of "the chair of the Roman church in which Peter first sat" (Contra Lit Petil).


(15) Prudentius (405) writes how in Rome there were "the two princes of the Apostles, one the Apostle of the Gentiles, the other holding the First Chair" (Hymn II in honor of St Laurent, V).


(16) Bachiarius (420) speaks of Rome as "the chair of Peter, the seat of faith" (De Fide 2).


(17) Prosper of Aquitaine (429) calls Rome "the Apostolic See" and the "Chair of the Apostle Peter" (Carm de Ingratis).


(18) The Roman legates at the Council of Ephesus (431) declare how "it is a matter doubtful to none that Peter lived and exercised judgement in his successors" and how "the holy and most blessed [Pope] Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place" (Acta Councilia, session 3, tom III, col 621).


(19) Peter Chrysologus (440) speaks of "blessed Peter living and presiding in his own see" (Ep ad Eutech).

(20) Pope Leo the Great (440) says how "the whole Church acknowledges Peter in the See of Peter (Rome)" (Serm II, 2).

(21) At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the assembled bishops respond to the teaching of Pope Leo the Great by crying out, "Peter has spoken through Leo." The sentence of the council is pronounced by the legates "in the name of Leo, the Council, and St. Peter" (Canons of Chalcedon).

(22) The Synodical Letter to Pope Leo from Chalcedon calls the Pope "the interpreter of Peter's voice."



(23) Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III (450) speak of "the primacy of the Apostolic See (Rome), made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops" (Inter ep Leon I, Vol XI, col 637).