A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[JacktheCatholic]

No. I find nothing in scripture where Christ speaks of "Popes" either directly or indirectly.

Peter in scripture received the Keys to Heaven and no other did. Peter held a primacy over all the other Apostles in scripture. Jesus commanded Peter to shephard his flock.

Scripture is full of Peter's primacy.

Scripture also shows that all the Apostles held a bishopric and that it was one of succession.

Seems to me that scripture says much to support the Papacy.

No. I have no idea where you'd come up with something as bizarre as that. Really. I can see saying that our church was founded during the Reformation--as incorrect as that is--but no one that I know thinks what you've written here. I know that if you read a hundred books on the Reformation you'll never find one that makes that claim. Even your own RCC teachers don't say this, not even those the most hostile to us. Newman, for instance, who changed religions, didn't say anything like that. Who does, other than yourself?

King Henry the 8th so desired other women that when the Catholic Church refused to recognize an annulment from his wife the King took control of all the Catholic Churchs land and churches and even took control of the clergy by force if needed. he then set up his own rules that made his decisions the authority in much the same way as a Pope has authority. Seems to me the Anglican religion is based on Catholicism but has been desecrated by an adulterous King and changed by said King.

I cannot see how this religion can claim to still believe their teachings are unaffected and that they teach fully what the Apostles left.

But maybe I am ignorant of some history or theology in to how the Anglican Church could retain all the teachings of the Apostles after a King forcefully took control of the Christian Churches in his kingdom and made them swear allegiance to the King before even God?

 

[Albion]

Well, "congress", or "comittee",.. the idea that any "binding & loosing" that gets "carved in ecclesiastical stone" must first reach a consensus.

I agree.

Breaks in continuity of succession I would argue, could occur where a goat or wolf is dressed up like a sheep & ordained by a senile, half-blind bishop. A whole committee of a parish or group of parishes etc., on up the line, could be corrupted by a clique of special interest of any sort.
That is why I trust in principles, not pedigrees.

Well sure, but if there's actually no goat or single senile bishop...

Character is taught thru its expression, not thru official pontifications professionaly isolated & alienated from the scoundrels that obtain the office & the chair.
That is why I consider it the heigth of hypocricy to say a church has never taught error and expect that meaning "officialy taught" gets that church off the moral hook for crimes against humanity.

I do agree that the idea that infallibility must somehow and for some reason reside somewhere among men, and independent of the Word of God, doesn't make much sense if looked at closely. It would be nice, of course, but it's far from necessary.

 

[Albion]

Peter in scripture received the Keys to Heaven and no other did. Peter held a primacy over all the other Apostles in scripture. Jesus commanded Peter to shephard his flock.

that's you're opinion. If we see "keys" to mean keys instead of papal infallibility and world rule, then it's wrong.

Scripture is full of Peter's primacy.

No it's not.

Scripture also shows that all the Apostles held a bishopric and that it was one of succession.

Nope. Neither of those is in scripture.

King Henry the 8th so desired other women that when the Catholic Church refused to recognize an annulment from his wife the King took control of all the Catholic Churchs land and churches and even took control of the clergy by force if needed.

That doesn't make it a new religion. In many countries of the world today, political leaders have taken church property, etc. and you aren't calling them Protestants as a result, are you?

he then set up his own rules that made his decisions the authority in much the same way as a Pope has authority.

That's nonsense. Henry never claimed anything that defines the Papacy as the Papacy, no universal jurisdiction, no infallibility, and not one single action that a bishop would be allowed to make. He re-asserted the long-established idea that the Church was a national church, not under the rule of any foreign ruler. That was not new in England.

Seems to me the Anglican religion is based on Catholicism but has been desecrated by an adulterous King and changed by said King.

"Desecrated?" You mean "desecrated" as with the Pope of your church who kidnapped a child and kept him as a foster child, or the ones who engaged in murder? You say that the church in those cases can't be blamed for what individual popes do in their personal lives, but when it comes to Henry, you have no hesitation to denounce the Church because of the personal life of the king who was not even--as the Popes were--clergy.

I cannot see how this religion can claim to still believe their teachings are unaffected and that they teach fully what the Apostles left.

That's because you don't know much about it.

But maybe I am ignorant of some history or theology in to how the Anglican Church could retain all the teachings of the Apostles after a King forcefully took control

Well, why couldn't it? There is no reason at all. In fact, Henry made no doctrinal changes (other than the administrative task of returning the church to its previous condition of independence from foreign rule). You apparently didn't know that.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

That's nonsense. Henry never claimed anything that defines the Papacy as the Papacy, no universal jurisdiction, no infallibility, and not one single action that a bishop would be allowed to make. He re-asserted the long-established idea that the Church was a national church, not under the rule of any foreign ruler. That was not new in England.

Nonsense!?

LOL

What about the Act of Supremacy?


Quote:
The Act of Supremacy required that the King, as Supreme Head of the Church, "shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempt, enormities whatsoever they be which by any manner, spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may be lawfully reformed".

 

[JacktheCatholic]

that's you're opinion. If we see "keys" to mean keys instead of papal infallibility and world rule, then it's wrong.

It is so much more than my opinion.

But read for yourself one of the best writings explaining the signifigance of the Keys and how they played a part in Peter's ministry.

LINK: http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

* You can skip to Papal Primacy and succession if you wish to read it and get to the meat of it.

Quote:
Now, let me just get a little personal here. Six or seven years ago, a couple years before I became a Catholic, I had been studying the doctrine of the Covenant. I came to an understanding of the Covenant as a family, and with this insight I began to discover all kinds of exciting truths, novel innovations, new discoveries that I thought were really undiscovered before. Then as I began to dig deeper into these libraries, I noticed that time and time again, Catholic scholars -- I mean not just recently but going all the way back to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th Centuries, in the Middle Ages -- the saints and the Doctors of the Church were consistently coming up with all of my brand new discoveries and teaching them with a kind of ho-hum attitude like, "You all know such and such."

 

[Albion]

It is so much more than my opinion.

That's right. It is an opinion held by other people too. But it is still an opinion and not a fact.

Nowhere in the Bible is a Pope described, Apostolic Succession described, or anything close to that. The Apostolic Church knew nothing of it. No bishop of Rome even advanced the theory until centuries after Christ, which if the verses in Matthew mean what you want them to mean, would not be the case.

So it's a matter of opinion, even if you hold it because some other people also hold it.

 

[Albion]

What about the Act of Supremacy?


Quote:
The Act of Supremacy required that the King, as Supreme Head of the Church, "shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempt, enormities whatsoever they be which by any manner, spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may be lawfully reformed".

As I said, Henry didn't change doctrines. If you know of some, let's have 'em.

The king of England in another time--but not now at all--was more like the Byzantine Emperor with EO, which is to say, a protector.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

As I said, Henry didn't change doctrines. If you know of some, let's have 'em.

The king of England in another time--but not now at all--was more like the Byzantine Emperor with EO, which is to say, a protector.

As I said "he then set up his own rules that made his decisions the authority in much the same way as a Pope has authority".

Which he did do as we see with his Act of Supremacy.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

That's right. It is an opinion held by other people too. But it is still an opinion and not a fact.

Nowhere in the Bible is a Pope described, Apostolic Succession described, or anything close to that. The Apostolic Church knew nothing of it. No bishop of Rome even advanced the theory until centuries after Christ, which if the verses in Matthew mean what you want them to mean, would not be the case.

So it's a matter of opinion, even if you hold it because some other people also hold it.

I have pointed out one of the most obvious examples in scripture that supports the Papacy. Matthew 16:17-19 and with reflection of Isaiah 22.

That is a lot of backing scripturally to the Papacy.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Albion if you had read my link then you would have read this as well:

I found this quotation in Martin Luther from 1530, years after he had left the Church, "Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth.'" This is Jesus talking, "'Peter's mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office.'" Luther even saw it, "'They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men.'" The only thing that Luther won't admit is that there was succession after Peter died, which is exactly what the keys denote, given their Old Testament background.

 

[Brennin]

It is so much more than my opinion.

But read for yourself one of the best writings explaining the signifigance of the Keys and how they played a part in Peter's ministry.

Been there, done that. The keys were given first to Peter in Matthew 16:19, then to the other apostles in Matthew 18:18. That makes Peter first among equals, not pope.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Been there, done that. The keys were given first to Peter in Matthew 16:19, then to the other apostles in Matthew 18:18. That makes Peter first among equals, not pope.

Where are the Keys mentioned in Matthew 18?

They are not.

 

[Brennin]

Where are the Keys mentioned in Matthew 18?

They are not.

This is not difficult. "Keys" do not need to be mentioned a second time because "binding and loosing" are what the "keys" are all about. Read that repeatedly until it sinks in.

 

[Rick Otto]

Albion if you had read my link then you would have read this as well:

I found this quotation in Martin Luther from 1530, years after he had left the Church, "Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth.'" This is Jesus talking, "'Peter's mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office.'" Luther even saw it, "'They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men.'" The only thing that Luther won't admit is that there was succession after Peter died, which is exactly what the keys denote, given their Old Testament background.

Welcome to liberty in Christ.
Just because Luther got one thing right, we don't confer blind loyalty upon him. You quote him as if he is AN authority, not simply "authoritative".
This is the what we object to: Hitchin' your entire wagon to one guy and conferring inerrancy upon him because he got one thing right.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

J.N.D. Kelly in his book, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes. He says, "The Papacy is the oldest of all Western institutions with an unbroken existence of almost 2000 years."

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Welcome to liberty in Christ.
Just because Luther got one thing right, we don't confer blind loyalty upon him. You quote him as if he is AN authority, not simply "authoritative".
This is the what we object to: Hitchin' your entire wagon to one guy and conferring inerrancy upon him because he got one thing right.

True... we can never put our trust in man because man will fail us. We can only trust in God fully.

That is why we trust when the Pope speaks from the chair and we trust the people that wrote the scriptures. We trust because we trust God divinely inspires these men to act inerrantly on his behest.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

This is not difficult. "Keys" do not need to be mentioned a second time because "binding and loosing" are what the "keys" are all about. Read that repeatedly until it sinks in.

You should read your post repeatedly because it is obviously a false statement.

If you use scripture to understand scripture then you will see what you said as being false too.

Read Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 repeatedly until it sinks in.