A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[racer]

I just do not see the topic of "papal infallibility" being proper at this time. It will get convaluted enough without that and I do not see it as necessary.

Then you must address these statements from Ireneaus. Especially #2:

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world;​

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, ​

(I thought maybe this quote needed a little clarification. Notice that he says, "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this to reckon up the successions of all the Churche? ​

Do you comprehend the importance of this statement? He is basically saying that all of the other churches, not just the one in Rome, have their own lines of succession. It would just have take too much time and room for him to list all of those in this particular texts. Puts a whole new meaning on the words to which you resort, doesn't it?)
​

I would like to discuss "Papal Infallibility" at another time though.

First, you can not ignore the fact that Von Dollinger was not just a theologian, he was a Church historian.

"As a Christian, as a theologian, as an historian, and as a citizen," he added, "I cannot accept this doctrine."


If your thread was merely entitled "Lineage of Bishops . . . ," we could avoid the topic of the Papacy and all that the title implies/asserts. But, the thread directly speaks of Popes. With that subject comes all of it's baggage. Von Dollinger specifically identifies what he believes to be the extent of the authority of the Church in Rome:

It has been said that his change of relations to the Papacy dated from the Italian war in 1859, but no sufficient reason has been given for this statement. It is more probable that, like Grosseteste, he had imbibed in early youth an enthusiastic sentiment of attachment to the Papacy as the only centre of authority, and the only guarantee for public order in the Church, but that his experience of the actual working of the papal system (land especially a visit to Rome in 1857) had to a certain extent convinced him how little correspondence there was between his ideal and the reality.​

But whatever may have been his reasons, he ultimately became the leader of those who were energetically opposed to any addition to, or more stringent definition of, the powers which the Papacy had possessed for centuries. In some speeches delivered at Munich in 1861 he outspokenly declared his view that the maintenance of the Roman Catholic Church did not depend on the temporal sovereignty of the pope. ​

In these the tendency of the Syllabus towards obscurantism and papal despotism, and its incompatibility with modern thought, were clearly pointed out; and the evidence against papal infallibility, resting, as the Letters asserted, on the False Decretals, and accepted without controversy in an age of ignorance, was ably marshalled for the guidance of the council.​

Now, whether you like it or not, these quotes address your claims regarding the authority of the succession of Popes. You can not dismiss their importance just because the protest occurred in 1870. It was not until this time that the dogma was Infallibly declared. I'm sure the irony of that particular Infallible declaration is completely lost on you.

 

[Rick Otto]

If I don't look at it, it will go away! (lol)
Infallability is the logical extreme & inevetible result of any supremacist doctrine.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

If I don't look at it, it will go away! (lol)
Infallability is the logical extreme & inevetible result of any supremacist doctrine.

You are like the fly that makes a lot of noise but offers nothing.

So, please tell us about your church and how it teaches on Apostolic succession and if they believe there is any merit in it?

Otherwise, think of something constructive and stop this pestering that you do.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

l

First, you can not ignore the fact that Von Dollinger was not just a theologian, he was a Church historian.

You are turning a thread about a Lineage of Popes in unbroken succession in to some Old Catholic topic.

This Von Dollinger is a heretic to the Catholic Church and not much different then the many "liberals" in the Catholic Chuch today.

He is hardly a good choice of a man to make an argument with. If you are using this thread to sell Old Catholic ideals on a thread that has to do with Popes and their unbroken succession then I think you should start another thread.

Otherwise, a heretic to the Catholic Church from the 19th century is hardly a case against the Bishop of Romes supremacy or the unbroken line of Bishops in Rome.

Start another thread and stop posting about this Old Catholic that could not accept Papal Infallibilty. I will be glad to argue the point there.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I do not see where you had shown anything. I think you were assuming the quote I used was to give all the validity in the world. That was not my intent. Showing the quote from Ireeaus was to show the view of Rome and their authority. It is but a piece in understanding the early church and how their hierarchy was.

After this post I will submit another letter following the letter from Ireneaus where he is mentioned to show yet another piece of the whole picture of the early church.

Well, I've shown you how Ireneaus' quote did not assert what you've implied.

Did you see this:

I think we can also add...

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).


Which shows Peters primacy and the chair that Jesus set up. This is similiar to how Moses had his chair but with Peter Jesus started His church on Peter and broke away from the Chair of Moses.

We also see reference to the Keys and it plainly shows that Peter has Primacy and by the chair we have a office of succession.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Irenaeus


"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church (church of Rome), because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Eusebius of Caesarea


"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).

"Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches" (ibid., 24:18).

 

[Albion]

l

You are turning a thread about a Lineage of Popes in unbroken succession in to some Old Catholic topic.

I don't think that this is the case. You started us off with the proposition that there are Popes, and you offered that the Fathers support this. However, all that they are saying in these passages is that there is Apostolic Succession--something that applies to any of the historic churches with bishops. I do think that you've confused the two issues, especially when reading some of the Fathers youself, and racer seems to me to be trying to show you that.

This Von Dollinger is a heretic to the Catholic Church and not much different then the many "liberals" in the Catholic Chuch today.

Well, I don't think it's reasonable to be calling everyone a liberal or heretic, willy nilly. Dollinger certainly deserves better from you in that regard, especially since you'd never even heard of him until a posts ago.

 

[racer]

You are turning a thread about a Lineage of Popes in unbroken succession in to some Old Catholic topic.

No, I am not. You are making a very discernable decision to continue in your line of delusion regarding your faith. I am showing you that the “infallibility of the Pope” was a hotly debated topic clear up to the time it was infallibly declared.

Any evidence of a succession of bishops does not equate to a succession of Popes. Sorry to havta break it to you.

This Von Dollinger is a heretic to the Catholic Church and not much different then the many "liberals" in the Catholic Chuch today.

LOL! You are familiar of the cliché’ “what’s good for the goose . . .” aren’t you? Do you remember how you thought nothing of citing Tertullian? Von Dollinger was a very devout Catholic who believed: he had imbibed in early youth an enthusiastic sentiment of attachment to the Papacy as the only centre of authority, and the only guarantee for public order in the Church, and who energetically opposed to any addition to, or more stringent definition of, the powers which the Papacy had possessed for centuries. And who believed the maintenance of the Roman Catholic Church did not depend on the temporal sovereignty of the pope. You can not imply gloss over this because it happened in 1870 during the push for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility to be infallible declared dogma.

Also, in 1849 he was invited to occupy the chair of ecclesiastical history. In 1848, when nearly every throne in Europe was shaken by the spread of revolutionary sentiments, he was elected delegate to the national German assembly at Frankfort, - a sufficient proof that at this time he was regarded as no mere narrow and technical theologian, but as a man of wide and independent views.

He is hardly a good choice of a man to make an argument with.

He’s hardly a man whose beliefs should be dismissed either. Remember Tertullian?

If you are using this thread to sell Old Catholic ideals on a thread that has to do with Popes and their unbroken succession then I think you should start another thread.

Well, if you had adequate discernment skills what I’m attempting to show would be very clear. I have read a bit from this thread and it’s not only addressing the supposed unbroken successionPopes, it has addressed the powers bestowed upon this position by the supposed sole possession of the keys.

Otherwise, a heretic to the Catholic Church from the 19th century is hardly a case against the Bishop of Romes supremacy or the unbroken line of Bishops in Rome.

Oh, simply because he disagreed with the authority of the Roman Bishop, he doesn’t know more than your average anti-Protestant. Remember Tertullian?

Start another thread and stop posting about this Old Catholic that could not accept Papal Infallibilty. I will be glad to argue the point there.

So, are you asserting that the only subject that is being discussed here is the succession of Popes. Then what is it you wish to prove by “proving” this unbroken line existed? What is your whole point here?

IOWs, if we just happened to say, “Okay, you’ve convinced us of this unbroken line,” what would be your next comment? Would you close this thread, or would you go on to present another argument that is based upon or founded on this “unbroken line of succession?”

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I don't think that this is the case. You started us off with the proposition that there are Popes, and you offered that the Fathers support this. However, all that they are saying in these passages is that there is Apostolic Succession--something that applies to any of the historic churches with bishops. I do think that you've confused the two issues, especially when reading some of the Fathers youself, and racer seems to me to be trying to show you that.

I believe that you need to read the quotes provided again. Not only do they plainly say that Rome is the Authority in the teaching of the church but they also show that Peter has a primacy and that it is passed on to the next Bishop of Rome.

I believe one would have to blatantly over look what is being said and then completely twist the words to mean something contrary to what they are speaking of. Then add that the letter I provided in regards to Ireneaus would have to be assigned to something or someone else entirely.

'Basically I am saying someone would need to create fiction in order to create that illusion that these letters do not show the Authority of Rome and it's Bishop (in my belief).

Well, I don't think it's reasonable to be calling everyone a liberal or heretic, willy nilly. Dollinger certainly deserves better from you in that regard, especially since you'd never even heard of him until a posts ago.

The Catholic Church has labeled Dollinger a heretic and before that to be assocoated with "liberals" which is the word used in most cases to say he is headed towards herecy.

Add to that, Dollinger was excommunicated from the Catholic Church (with others) and when things in the Old Catholcs became too "liberal" for Dollinger the Catholic Church would not take him back.

 

[racer]

BTW, if you actually read the article, you would know that Von Dollinger was no where near being a liberal.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So, are you asserting that the only subject that is being discussed here is the succession of Popes.

Yep, that is pretty much what I am saying.

Please start another thread if you wish to debate "Papal Infallibity".

Thanks!

 

[racer]

Jack,

Then please address the fact that Ireneaus said that all the churches of his time had a succession of bishops, not just that of Rome. Surely, you realize this is relevant to your discussion.

Besides, I wasn’t participating in your thread, you’d have virtually nor responses—in case you have noticed that. Second, where you may be able to establish some sort of succession of bishops, we are at a loss as to what your point is and exactly what you believe this point proves . . . .

 

[racer]

After this post I will submit another letter following the letter from Ireneaus where he is mentioned to show yet another piece of the whole picture of the early church.

Are you denying that Ireneaus alluded to a succession of bishops in the other churches?

 

[racer]

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

In its list of the Popes, the Holy See's annual directory, Annuario Pontificio, attaches to the name of Pope Leo VIII (963-965) the following note: "At this point, as again in the mid-eleventh century, we come across elections in which problems of harmonizing historical criteria and those of theology and canon law make it impossible to decide clearly which side possessed the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees the unbroken lawful succession of the Successors of Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases results has made it advisable to abandon the assignation of successive numbers in the list of the Popes." In all cases it is clear that whichever was the Pope, the other was an antipope, since the claim of each was widely accepted.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack,

Then please address the fact that Ireneaus said that all the churches of his time had a succession of bishops, not just that of Rome. Surely, you realize this is relevant to your discussion.

Besides, I wasn’t participating in your thread, you’d have virtually nor responses—in case you have noticed that. Second, where you may be able to establish some sort of succession of bishops, we are at a loss as to what your point is and exactly what you believe this point proves . . . .

WE have had not trouble understanding the succession of Bishops and those Bishops of Rome and the importance and Authority of Rome.

It is a handful of people at this thread that seem unable to understand the simple truths of it.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Are you denying that Ireneaus alluded to a succession of bishops in the other churches?

NOPE

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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

In its list of the Popes, the Holy See's annual directory, Annuario Pontificio, attaches to the name of Pope Leo VIII (963-965) the following note: "At this point, as again in the mid-eleventh century, we come across elections in which problems of harmonizing historical criteria and those of theology and canon law make it impossible to decide clearly which side possessed the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees the unbroken lawful succession of the Successors of Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases results has made it advisable to abandon the assignation of successive numbers in the list of the Popes." In all cases it is clear that whichever was the Pope, the other was an antipope, since the claim of each was widely accepted.

I believ if we look at a list of Popes we will not see any Anti-Popes.

A good list and site to refer to:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

 

[racer]

WE have had not trouble understanding the succession of Bishops and those Bishops of Rome and the importance and Authority of Rome.

Wait a minute, we're not talking about the authority of Rome, only the Succession of "Popes."

It is a handful of people at this thread that seem unable to understand the simple truths of it.

That should be a big red flashing sign that tells you nothing about the assertions of your faith are simple.

 

[racer]

I believ if we look at a list of Popes we will not see any Anti-Popes.

A good list and site to refer to:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Yeah, I've read it. It's not exactly an impartial site.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Yeah, I've read it. It's not exactly an impartial site.

LOL!

It is a Catholic site.


Here is Wikipedia but for myself I like the Newadvent one better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popes