A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[JacktheCatholic]

If you read the Word of God,
you wouldn't consider the Church to be error free.
In fact, you should conclude quite the opposite, since
Paul was always writing letters to correct certain churches' errors. In fact even in Rev 2 & 3 we see that the churches in John's day were filled with error.

Paul was correcting men. The Church is a complex item. It is not a single bishop or clergyman. Paul was not correcting the Church but rather the men that had become misled in their understanding of what the Church taught.

The Church is the Bride of Christ and the Christ is the Holy Spirit.

To say the Pope or a man is the Church would be in error. The man or the men are but stewards or guides. And as men they can be fallible. Of course tis brings discussion to the infallibility of the Pope. If men can be fallible and the Pope is but a man then he can be fallible. And in general that would be correct. The infallibility of the Pope is not on him as a man but rather what the Church allows him to teach ex cathedra. Remember also that there have been only two cases of the Pope teaching dogmatically from the Chair of Peter and that was with the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of Mary.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I was a bit bored last night. Also work has been light because of the holiday season. So, I have some time for ForU.ms.

 

[simonthezealot]

Remember also that there have been only two cases of the Pope teaching dogmatically from the Chair of Peter and that was with the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of Mary.

"from the chair" = ex cathedra...twice only?

 

[simonthezealot]

Paul was correcting men. The Church is a complex item. It is not a single bishop or clergyman. Paul was not correcting the Church but rather the men that had become misled in their understanding of what the Church taught.

Lets check scripture...
1 Corinthians 1


1Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, 2To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:

 

[simonthezealot]

I was a bit bored last night. Also work has been light because of the holiday season. So, I have some time for christianforums.com.

I like to come here for a little more subtle debate than GT, these forums have much less traffic you can actually stick to points enough to drive them home!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

"from the chair" = ex cathedra...twice only?

To be more specific...

The Pope has used the power of Infallibity twice (just two times) to declare a doctrine/dogma as mentioned.

Other doctrines were as the Church with the Pope and the Magesterium which of course is led by the Holy Spirit.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Lets check scripture...
1 Corinthians 1


1Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, 2To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:

Well let me see...

Paul is addressing the church located in Corinth and formally doing so. We see this in Romans too, the formal start of the letter. It shows the audience it is intended for. But this is the greeting and it is addressed to all.

He is not correcting anyone or anything at this time. So let us move further on...


I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose


Now here on line ten we see that Paul is now apst the niceties and addressing the problem. He does not start by stating the church in Corinth but rather he says 'brothers'. He as speaking to the people and not the church.

 

[Rick Otto]

I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose


Now here on line ten we see that Paul is now apst the niceties and addressing the problem. He does not start by stating the church in Corinth but rather he says 'brothers'. He as speaking to the people and not the church.

same people, Jack.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

same people, Jack.

When I speak to a dozen other Catholics it does not mean I am speaking to the church. For that matter if a Bishop is speaking to one of the parishes of his diocese he is not speaking to the church but the people at the parish. IF it were to the Church it would be to every Christian every where.

 

[simonthezealot]

Well let me see...

Paul is addressing the church located in Corinth and formally doing so.

You answered yourself Jack...

Also, you said a church is a complex thing, how so?
This is what I find so troublesome with your form of Christianity...You make everything much more difficult than is necessary; churc, salvation, the sacrements all that JAZZ!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You answered yourself Jack...

Also, you said a church is a complex thing, how so?
This is what I find so troublesome with your form of Christianity...You make everything much more difficult than is necessary; churc, salvation, the sacrements all that JAZZ!

If Paul were addressing the Church it would not simply be addressed to one locale. It would be addressed to all churches. When a letter of this sort was sent it was sent to the Universal Church or Catholic Church. That is also why when Ignatius wrote Catholic it was to the Church and why it was not catholic but it was Catholic.

 

[simonthezealot]

If Paul were addressing the Church it would not simply be addressed to one locale. It would be addressed to all churches. When a letter of this sort was sent it was sent to the Universal Church or Catholic Church. That is also why when Ignatius wrote Catholic it was to the Church and why it was not catholic but it was Catholic.

Go ahead and cite a scriptural example...Thanks!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Go ahead and cite a scriptural example...Thanks!

1 Corinthians:

1 1 2 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 to the church of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be holy, with all those everywhere who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours. 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 4 I give thanks to my God always on your account for the grace of God bestowed on you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in him you were enriched in every way, with all discourse and all knowledge, 6 as the testimony 3 to Christ was confirmed among you, 7 so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift as you wait for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 8 He will keep you firm to the end, irreproachable on the day of our Lord Jesus (Christ). 9 God is faithful, and by him you were called to fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. 10 4 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. 11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you. 12 I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to 5 Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." 13 6 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one can say you were baptized in my name. 16 (I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 7 8 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.



First he goes in to a greeting and addressing their church in Corinth and not the whole Church of God but the portion of his body in Corinth. After the niceties he addresses those that are elading that part of the church and urges them to stay united for they are not following the Church fully in it's teachings. He goes on to explain what they are doing wrong and why.

 

[AllTalkNoAction]

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 . . .

A list isn't evidence, it's just a statement of what some people believe.
Let's look at scripture & historical evidence . . .

In the 5 letters written by Paul FROM ROME there is not one greeting from Peter
. . a bit rude if Peter is the Bishop there!

And in Paul's letter TO THE CHURCH AT ROME, 27 members are greeted by name but no mention of Peter!

c.AD60 Paul writes to the church at ROME teaching all manner of basic doctrine :-
For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established (Romans 1:11)
- surely a church under Peter's Episcopal care did not need Paul to estabolish them?

Romans 15:20: Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:
But if Peter is the head of that church Paul is building on that man's foundation!
According to the RCC, Peter had already preached the gospel and been bishop there for years!

Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles. "The gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)" (Gal. 2:7-8).

So, it was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles.
"And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9).

Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11:
"Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."

PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles!

This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.
Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter.

Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul’s arrival, they all went to meet him.
"When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15).
Again, no mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts.

When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23).
But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that
‘‘as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (v. 22).

Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God.
Some believed -- the majority didn’t.
If Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 years before this time, - how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity?

This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13).
Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon?
- because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East.
Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say Peter’s writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor -- the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect.

Conclusion:-
There is not a shred of biblical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, or that he ever needed to be.


This page gives evidence of another Simon Peter who did set up a religion in Rome at that time.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

A list isn't evidence, it's just a statement of what some people believe.
Let's look at scripture & historical evidence . . .

If we posted a list of Presidents from George Washington to George Bush it would be considered evidence of the history of the government of the USA and more.

The list of Popes from Simon (Peter) to Benedict XVI is similiar. It shows that the Catholic Church is indeed the church started by the Apostles and thus Jesus.

One Holy and Apostolic Church.

 

[AllTalkNoAction]

If we posted a list of Presidents from George Washington to George Bush it would be considered evidence of the history of the government of the USA and more.

I'm sorry you think a list by someone constitues evidence, meanwhile you simply ignore the facts of scripture presented. Most people need historical proof otherwise I could give a list of English Monarchs starting with Mickey Mouse and it would be just as valid.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I'm sorry you think a list by someone constitues evidence, meanwhile you simply ignore the facts of scripture presented. Most people need historical proof otherwise I could give a list of English Monarchs starting with Mickey Mouse and it would be just as valid.

There is plenty of historical proof as well. Rooms full of it.

We have letters to and from Popes. We have documents about them. We also have letters from kingdoms not part of Christendom that speak of these popes through the ages.

There is plenty of historical proof of these popes and their holding of office.

Your argument is WORTHLESS.

 

[Rick Otto]

Mickey Rules.

 

[SpiritDriven]

If we posted a list of Presidents from George Washington to George Bush it would be considered evidence of the history of the government of the USA and more.

The list of Popes from Simon (Peter) to Benedict XVI is similiar. It shows that the Catholic Church is indeed the church started by the Apostles and thus Jesus.

One Holy and Apostolic Church.

False...

The Church Christ founded is in the heart of all believers....it is not a place that can be mapped, or any particular point that can be located for believers to gather, know you not that your body is the temple.

Pope is not mentioned in the Bible.....the Bible does clearly state that Paul was the chosen vessel of Christ to bear his name before the Gentiles and their Kings and the children of Israel.....Paul rebuked Peter....Peter never rebuked Paul.

What has happened in Rome, does not in any way make the Catholic Church the Church Christ founded.....

That which is praised in the sight of Man, is an abomination in the sight of God.....

 

[JacktheCatholic]

False...

The Church Christ founded is in the heart of all believers....it is not a place that can be mapped, or any particular point that can be located for believers to gather, know you not that your body is the temple.

Pope is not mentioned in the Bible.....the Bible does clearly state that Paul was the chosen vessel of Christ to bear his name before the Gentiles and their Kings and the children of Israel.....Paul rebuked Peter....Peter never rebuked Paul.

What has happened in Rome, does not in any way make the Catholic Church the Church Christ founded.....

That which is praised in the sight of Man, is an abomination in the sight of God.....

Yeah, yeah...


Please take a course on Church History 101 since it is a teaching of the world and not just that Catholic Church that the Catholic Church traces it's roots back to the Apostles. Sorry Protestant 'churches' cannot go further back then the 16th century. And that is my evidence that all Protestant churches are man made and not from God.