A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[JacktheCatholic]

Mickey Rules.

"M", "I", "C" - see ya real soon
"K", "E", "Y" - why? because we love you
"M","O","U.S.E..."


He he. I think I got that right.

 

[Rick Otto]

Hey Jack, history just ran over RC tradition.
The tradition that Peter was buried in Rome is now Road Pizza. All extra-scriptural tradition is now suspect.

You can stop with the blind part of your loyalty.
Stay Roman Catholic, by all means... but drop the boasting about being the UberChurch. Your religious supremacy just took a dust bath. Your succession theory is as broke as I am now:
http://www.aloha.net/%7Emikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Hey Jack, history just ran over RC tradition.
The tradition that Peter was buried in Rome is now Road Pizza. All extra-scriptural tradition is now suspect.

You can stop with the blind part of your loyalty.
Stay Roman Catholic, by all means... but drop the boasting about being the UberChurch. Your religious supremacy just took a dust bath. Your succession theory is as broke as I am now:
http://www.aloha.net/%7Emikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

The Catholic Church is for all Christians so it is the Uber church of all.

But let me see what you found about Peter being in Jerusalem according to this book from 1958 "Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit".

Apparently Wiki has nothing to say on this HOT topic from 1958: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominus_Flevit_Church


AND your article is rather outdated...
Copyright 1960 by F. PAUL PETERSON (4th Edition, 1971).

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Rick you are too quick to dismiss the urial site of Peter...

Your source is outdated.

Wiki adds:
In 1950, human bones were found buried underneath the altar of St. Peter's Basilica. The bones have been claimed by many to have been that of Peter.[13] These claims were later contradicted by a 1953 excavation of what some believe to be Peter's Tomb in Jerusalem.[14] This discovery seems to clarify Paul's confrontation in Antioch (ca 51 AD) with "Cephas" (Galatians 2:1–8), as being Peter. Also there is an apocryphal text entitled "Martyrdom of Paul," in which Peter is absent from Paul's death at Rome, stating Paul's only companions to be Luke and Titus (2 Timothy, Paul says "only Luke is with me.") As excavations and research continue, they may shed light upon seeming contradictions between oral and written tradition. Nevertheless, the Vatican contends that the bones found in 1950 are St. Peter's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter#Empty_tomb


CONTINUED:

Death of Peter

Caravaggio's depiction of the crucifixion of Saint Peter.


The early writings indicated in the following paragraphs witness to the tradition that Peter, probably at the time of the Great Fire of Rome of the year 64, for which the Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, met martyrdom in Rome.
Clement of Rome, in his Letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 5), written c. 80-98, speaks of Peter's martyrdom in the following terms: "Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death… Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him."
Saint Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Romans (Ch. 4) of c. 105-110, tells the Roman Christians: "I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did."
Dionysius of Corinth wrote: "You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

St. Irenaeus of Lyon (a disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was himself a disciple of the Apostle St. John, which puts Irenaeus not far from the authentic teachings of the Apostles) in c. 175-185 wrote in Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):

Since, however, 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, 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.​

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles…​

Tertullian also writes: "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]"
Traditions originating in or recorded in the apocryphal Acts of Peter, say that the Romans crucified Peter upside down at his request, due to his wishing not to be equated with Jesus. Acts of Peter is also thought to be the source for the tradition about the famous phrase "Quo Vadis" (Where are you going?), a question that, according to this tradition, Peter, fleeing Rome to avoid execution, asked a vision of Jesus, and to which Jesus responded that he was "going to Rome, to be crucified again," causing Peter to decide to return to the city and accept martyrdom. This story is commemorated in an Annibale Carracci painting. The Church of Quo Vadis, near the Catacombs of Saint Callistus, contains a stone in which Jesus' footprints from this event are supposedly preserved, though this was actually apparently an ex-voto from a pilgrim, and indeed a copy of the original, housed in the Basilica of St Sebastian.
The ancient historian Josephus describes how Roman soldiers would amuse themselves by crucifying criminals in different positions, and it is likely that this would have been known to the author of the Acts of Peter. The position attributed to Peter's crucifixion is thus plausible, either as having happened historically or as being an invention by the author of the Acts of Peter. Death, after crucifixion head down, is unlikely to be caused by suffocation, the usual cause of death in ordinary crucifixion.
A medieval misconception was that the Mamertine Prison in Rome is the place where Peter was imprisoned before his execution.

 

[AllTalkNoAction]

According to Catholic tradition, Peter asked that to be crucified upside down stating that
he was not worthy to suffer the same kind of death of his master Jesus Christ.
Then he was buried under the altar witch now is the Basilica of Saint Peter's.
Here is a Catholic account of what happened to Peter's body on the night of his death:-

"On the night of his death on the cross Peter's followers buried his body. As in the case of Jesus on the hill of Calvary it was wrapped in linen and secretly taken to a PAGAN BURIAL GROUND on the Via Cornelia, behind the stone structure of the arena. This PAGAN CEMETERY lay on a knoll called VATICANUS: the Latin word `vatis' means a `prophet' or `SOOTHSAYER'. In days gone by there had been an Etruscan oracle on this spot" (Keller's comment - the official comment of the Roman Catholic Church p. 368).

This is upside down reasoning!
If the Apostle Peter was crucified it was because he was hated by the Romans,
so they would hardly allow him to be buried in the special cemeteries reserved for
the chief pagans and self proclaimed Gods / Peters!

He would have verbally attacked their "gods" and religion:-
"we have not followed cunningly devised fables" (2 Peter 1:16)

Also the Jews had their own cemetries to be buried in.

 

[Rick Otto]

Jack,
of all that you posted, only two guys place Peter in Rome with Paul, and only building foundation.
Everything else rests on "The bones have been claimed by many to have been that of Peter."
And:
"Nevertheless, the Vatican contends that the bones found in 1950 are St. Peter's."

Which would add up to Pagan Roman Nobles putting a crucified criminal in their sacred ground.

Rick you are too quick to dismiss the urial site of Peter...

Your source is outdated.

By how long?
How long after the Jerusalem find did it take The Vatican to find their own set of Peter's bones?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack,
of all that you posted, only two guys place Peter in Rome with Paul, and only building foundation.
Everything else rests on "The bones have been claimed by many to have been that of Peter."
And:
"Nevertheless, the Vatican contends that the bones found in 1950 are St. Peter's."

Which would add up to Pagan Roman Nobles putting a crucified criminal in their sacred ground.




By how long?
How long after the Jerusalem find did it take The Vatican to find their own set of Peter's bones?

I did a quick search at the Vatican website and my first source was a letter by the Pope written in 2003 and it says Peter is buried in Rome.

Article:

Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul
Sunday, 29 June 2003​

QUOTE:
Today, the Diocese of Rome, rooted in the witness of the two great Apostles, is celebrating in a special way. Peter, chosen by Christ as the "rock" on which to build his Church, was crucified not far from the Vatican Hill and his tomb is the symbolic centre of the Catholic faith. Paul, beheaded at the gates of Rome, is a model of evangelization and his Letters, a conspicuous part of the New Testament, never cease to attract to Christ men and women of all times.

AND towards the bottom

May their visit to the tomb of St Peter be for each one a cause of renewed commitment in fidelity to Christ and to the Church.


LINK: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/angelus/2003/documents/hf_jp-ii_ang_20030629_en.html


But I am also submitting my second search item as well to show that the Vatican does NOT give credibility to your 1958 article.

Article:

SYNODUS EPISCOPORUM
BULLETIN
of the Commission for information of the
X ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
30 September-27 October 2001​

QUOTE:
At 9.30 this morning, Sunday 30 September 2001, in the Patriarchal Vatican Basilica, at the tomb of the Apostle Peter, Pope John Paul II presided at the Solemn Concelebration of the Eucharist with the Synodal Fathers, for the Inauguration of the X Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, to be held in the Synod Hall of the Vatican from 30 September to 27 October 2001, on the theme The Bishop: Servant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the Hope of the World.

LINK: http://www.vatican.va/news_services...no_20_x-ordinaria-2001/02_inglese/b03_02.html

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Rick,

I have found many letters and documents that state the Tomb of Peter is in Rome. I have found NOTHING from the Vatican site to give any credit to your claim that the Vatican gives credibilty to your article in 1958 about the "Dominus Flevit".

I am also posting another letter which to me shows that the Vatican believes and announces that the Tomb of Peter is in Rome.

ARTICLE:

ADDRESS OF POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO SCOTTISH PILGRIMS
Monday, 4 December 1996​

QUOTE:

Your Eminence,
Dear Friends,
I am very pleased to welcome you, Cardinal Winning, together with the Lord Provost of Glasgow and the many faithful who have accompanied you on this pilgrimage to Rome as you celebrate your silver jubilee of episcopal ordination.
It is doubly appropriate that the actual anniversary celebrations fell on the feast of the Apostle St Andrew, patron of Scotland. It was Andrew who first brought his brother, Simon Peter, to the Lord. Today, following in the footsteps of countless Scottish pilgrims down the centuries, you have come to Rome to visit the tomb of Peter at the Vatican. May this pilgrimage confirm the bonds of communion uniting you with Peter’s Successor and bring you, even as Andrew brought Peter, ever closer to Jesus Christ. I am confident that the Catholics of Scotland, well-known for their fidelity to the Lord and his Church even amid suffering and trials, will be granted the grace to persevere in joyful witness to the Gospel and its message of enduring hope.
Commending all of you to the loving care of Mary, Mother of the Church, I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of grace and peace in Christ our Saviour.

LINK: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...uments/hf_jp-ii_spe_19961202_scotland_en.html​

 

[JacktheCatholic]

These letters from the Vatican discredit your 1958 article and your claim that the Vatican gives credibility to it.

 

[tblaine74]

Jack,
of all that you posted, only two guys place Peter in Rome with Paul

Are there any writings from the same period that contradict those "two guys"?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Are there any writings from the same period that contradict those "two guys"?

Nope.

Peter and Paul in Rome were the pinnacle of the Bishops of all time.

 

[Catholic Christian]

If you could somehow go back in a time machine and meet the apostle Peter, how would you react? Would you listen to him? Would you respect the fact that he was given his apostleship by Christ himself? Can you deny that you would be at least a little excited to met this Simon Bar Jonah who Jesus renamed Peter?
Well, that's how we Catholics feel about the pope. We believe he is Peter's successor.

Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, the Son of the Living God. The pope is a man. But, the pope occupies an office established by Christ himself (Matt: 16: 17-19) and we respect that.

 

[Albion]

If you could somehow go back in a time machine and meet the apostle Peter, how would you react? Would you listen to him? Would you respect the fact that he was given his apostleship by Christ himself? Can you deny that you would be at least a little excited to met this Simon Bar Jonah who Jesus renamed Peter?

I think I'd be thrilled to meet any of the Apostles whom Christ called and commissioned.

Well, that's how we Catholics feel about the pope. We believe he is Peter's successor.

We know this. We'd rather that people not make Peter into something Christ did not appoint him to--let alone over 200 people who have come since Peter and tried to claim that what Christ said to Peter was said to them! However, I don't think there's anyone who does not know why Catholics beleive as they do on this matter. There is one verse, and it is misinterpreted.

Since the Roman Catholic interpretation makes almost all the rest of the New Testament not dealing expliticly with Jesus' life irrelevant, doesn't it stand to reason that there would be plenty of commentary from Jesus and the other epistle writers about this? Of course.

There is no end of verses saying that we are to be baptised, that forgiveness is important, that living a Christlike life is important, that eternal life is the promise we have in Christ, etc....but when it comes to the idea that one man has the final say over it all, there's only one mysterious verse Matt 16:18 or perhaps two Matt 16: 18-19 in all of scripture.

Even at that, you are careful not to read or recommend to us the verses in the same passage which follow Matt 16:19 since they undercut your theory about Peter as a pope.

Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, the Son of the Living God. The pope is a man. But, the pope occupies an office established by Christ himself (Matt: 16: 17-19) and we respect that.

Christ established no office of "Pope."

If he had done so...if Matthew 16: 18ff did not mean something else...do you not think that one of the bishops of Rome would have thought of it sooner than 300+ years AFTER Christ?

And that the other bishops of the world (all of whom, we must presume, were familiar with the Gospels) would have read it the way you do?

 

[Rick Otto]

Albion,
does this mean that even tho I drink Tang, I'm not an astronaut?

 

[Albion]

Albion,
does this mean that even tho I drink Tang, I'm not an astronaut?

I'm afraid so.

BUT, maybe you shouldn't accept defeat so readily.

You could always argue that

1. the astronauts drank Tang,

2. that it is unthinkable that we could be without astronauts, us having been to the Moon and beyond--this being a national compulsion and commitment,

3. that no one can be a "real" astronaut unless he is drinking Tang (obviously),

4. and that since you do while those in the NASA program no longer do...well, you must be an astronaut after all.

 

[Rick Otto]

Dude!
I appreciate your concern, but defeat is way easier than tryin' to remember all that.

 

[Albion]

Dude!
I appreciate your concern, but defeat is way easier than tryin' to remember all that.

Well then, you're probably not up for "Why fire engines are red."--

1. Fire Engines have four wheels and eight men.

2. Four and eight is twelve.

3. There are twelve inches on a ruler.

4. Queen Elizabeth I was a ruler.

5. Her ships sailed the seven seas.

6. Seas have fish in them.

7. Fish have fins.

8. The Finns fought the Russians.

9. The Russians were Red(s).

Therefore, we use red for the color of fire engines.

Now we're ready to move onto "How we know that Christ instituted the Papacy."

 

[Brennin]

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.

There is no credible evidence Peter even set foot in Rome. The correct form of ecclesiastical governance is autocephalous bishoprics, not the RCC model.

 

[Rick Otto]

I agree the burial of a martyr amongst his murderer's dead seems unlikely, but...
How come the "Babylon" reference by Peter isn't credible?

 

[Catholic Christian]

pax vobis from
the Catholic Crusader

Here is a complete list of all the popes back to St Peter: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm