A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[Trento]

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.

Evangelical NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY 21st Century Edition (1994).
States that the proof is right in your Bible but
It looks like you ignore Christian History even by non Catholic Scholars.
I make claims as an amateur historian too, but the difference is that I back them up with scholars, and almost all Protestant ones, lest I be accused of Catholic bias. No one cares what I think because I am not a scholar. But they should care about the informed opinions of the experts in the field. The choice we face is clear, and I urge readers to ponder the manifest absurdity of the "case" you are making.

 

[E.C.]

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.

You claim that there is no proof.

Keep in mind that in the 4th century, Rome was sacked an a bunch of written records kept in Rome were most likely destroyed.

The thing that I find a bit annoying about Roman Catholics arguing that Rome is supreme is the fact that a lot tend to forget two key things: 1) Peter was bishop of Antioch before he ever saw Rome and 2) Rome was only given primacy, not supremacy, because it was the capital of the Roman Empire. Constantinople came second in seniority because it was the new capital, Alexandria and Antioch were next in seniority because they were important cities in the Roman Empire and Jerusalem need no explanation as to why it is important.

 

[freespiritchurch]

Trento, none of your quotes deal with my original claim that the list of bishops of Rome was compiled around 150 AD or so, and that it projected a monarchical episcopate back to a period before there was a single bishop in Rome. This is, in my view, the best explanation of the data.

By the way, saying PROTESTANT in big letters does not make your argument more convincing.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

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.

Why did you start with year 67?

Forgive me...

 

[IamAdopted]

When do you all say that Peter reigned as a Pope?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

When do you all say that Peter reigned as a Pope?

First let me be clear that we do not say that St. Peter reigned.

St. Peter was the first "Bishop of Rome" beginning in 42 A.D., nine years after being Bishop of Antioch which began in 34 A.D..

So I asked why 67 A.D.?

Forgive me...

 

[Trento]

Trento, none of your quotes deal with my original claim that the list of bishops of Rome was compiled around 150 AD or so, and that it projected a monarchical episcopate back to a period before there was a single bishop in Rome. This is, in my view, the best explanation of the data.

By the way, saying PROTESTANT in big letters does not make your argument more convincing.

Some of the most respected professional (Protestant) Church historians:support the Catholic thesis that there is exercise of authority from the Church of Rome in this letter that has it's origin from the Apostles.


[SIZE=-1]The first example of the exercise of a sort of papal authority is found towards the close of the first century in the letter of the Roman bishop Clement (d. 102) to the bereaved and distracted church of Corinth . . . it can hardly be denied that the document 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 because St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1](Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rep. 1976 from 1910 edition, 157-158[/SIZE]






Protestant J.B. Lightfoot Church historian--

'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. AD 90​

Harnack another Protestant exegete/historian remarks,​

'This letter to the Corinthians proves already at the end of the first century the Roman Church ... kept watch with the maternal care for the distant churches, and that at that date she knew how to utter the word that is an expression of duty, of love and authority at the same time'​

History of Dogma​

Protestant scholar John Lawson’s work The Biblical Theology had this to say about 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


Schaff -- HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH
CHAPTER IV:

In the external organization of the church, several important changes appear in the post apostolic period before us. The distinction of clergy and laity, and the sacerdotal view of the ministry becomes prominent and fixed; subordinate church offices are multiplied; the episcopate arises; the beginnings of the Roman primacy appear; and the exclusive unity of the Catholic church develops itself in opposition to heretics and schismatics. The apostolical organization of the first century now gives place to the Catholic episcopal system.​

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). ​

​

 

[RccWarrior]

Why did you start with year 67?

Forgive me...

Because St. Peter reigned up until that year. Remember that Jesus gave the keys to him signifying his authority to rule the church.

 

[RccWarrior]

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.

Mrconstance or "pastor", I don't expect you to believe anything that is Catholic, nor the Popes for that matter. But if people are telling you facts and backing them up even by your own people, well....
I have compiled my list and the source is from the Holy Bible itself. Not Scripture, but in the front of my Bible, it lists all 265 popes in it. Is the Holy Bible a good enough source for you?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Because St. Peter reigned up until that year. Remember that Jesus gave the keys to him signifying his authority to rule the church.

The Church of Rome has a date of establishment just like all the others.

If you wish to show the line of the Bishops of Rome, then you should begin with the date Rome was established as a Church.

IOW~

St Peter 42-67

St Peter was not the Bishop of Rome before 42, as he was the Bishop of Antioch until that time.

St Peter was the Bishop of Antioch from 34-42.

St Peter was never the Bishop of Jerusalem. That was St. James.

Forgive me...

 

[JasonV]

The first few "popes" on your list are questioned as to when they served, who was actually first, etc.

That first century or two was rough to say the least.

 

[RccWarrior]

The first few "popes" on your list are questioned as to when they served, who was actually first, etc.

That first century or two was rough to say the least.

Not to get off topic, but can you tell me what a "Liberal Catholic" means?? Jesus made one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. He made one church, the Catholic church.

 

[RccWarrior]

The Church of Rome has a date of establishment just like all the others.

If you wish to show the line of the Bishops of Rome, then you should begin with the date Rome was established as a Church.

IOW~

St Peter 42-67

St Peter was not the Bishop of Rome before 42, as he was the Bishop of Antioch until that time.

St Peter was the Bishop of Antioch from 34-42.

St Peter was never the Bishop of Jerusalem. That was St. James.

Forgive me...

OK, well then he was the Bishop of Rome after that time.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

OK, well then he was the Bishop of Rome after that time.

Forgive me...

 

[JasonV]

Not to get off topic, but can you tell me what a "Liberal Catholic" means?? Jesus made one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. He made one church, the Catholic church.

The Liberal Catholic Church is an Old Catholic denomination stemming from the See of Utrecht in Holland.

Jesus never made a Church. Jesus preached the Gospel.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Jesus never made a Church.

Hmmm....

Really?

What did he leave the Apostles in charge of then.

And why did he himself leave St. James as the Bishop of Jerusalem before his assention?

Forgive me...

 

[JasonV]

Hmmm....

Really?

What did he leave the Apostles in charge of then.

And why did he himself leave St. James as the Bishop of Jerusalem before his assention?

Forgive me...

My friend, I believe Jesus preached the Gospel. I believe his disciples started the Church. (Not that there is anything wrong with that mind you.)

About St. James....source please?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

On this rock I will build my....

Forgive me...

 

[JasonV]

On this rock I will build my....

Forgive me...

If I recall friend, that statement was made to St. Peter, not St. James. ???

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

If I recall friend, that statement was made to St. Peter, not St. James. ???

The statement was made to all who were there...

What does that have to do with "what" Christ was building?

Forgive me...