C
Contarini
Guest
As I said, the dominant theory is that there were probably several people leading the Roman church at any one time. If that isn’t true–well, then, someone got mixed up. I can’t see why this is such a big deal.
- Status
Stephen168
New member
Chad’s true statement does not change your fiction.
This is the second time you have been confused on this issue. You might write the following on a 3x5 card and place it near your computer for future reference: “The Orthodox, Anglican, or Lutheran claim to Apostolic Succession does not change the Catholic claim to Apostolic Succession.”
The number of Bishops hanging out in a given Diocese does not change the Catholic claim of Apostolic Succession. There were two in Seattle in the 1980’s.
Peter’s place of death does not change the Catholic claim of Apostolic Succession.
The number of people claiming to be Pope at any given time does not change the Catholic claim of Apostolic Succession. There are a number of them who make that claim today.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Edwin you wrote, “According to the majority of modern historians, there probably was not a single bishop of Rome until about half-way through the second century.”
If the single bishop of Rome, Peter’s successor, is the visible head of the Church on earth, how many were needed at any given point in time half-way through the 2nd century?
J
johnpauls
Guest
I was not referring to how many people “claim” to be Pope. I was referring to how many Popes where voted in by the same enclave of Cardinals during the exact same time in history. At one time in history there were 3 legitimate (not Anti) Popes - and the Cardinals needed to come back and get 2 over them to resign. Later, 2 became Anti-Popes when they did not resign the position at the request of the Cardinals - one going as far as being excommunicated.
The point is that through history there have been some “squirly” moments in the creation of Popes that I believe broke the ability to call it succession.
C
Contarini
Guest
The later “Roman Catholic” way of thinking about the Petrine ministry which is implied (if only ironically) in your question is indeed anachronistic. That does not mean that the Petrine succession is false.
Early Christians thought about this more in terms of the local Roman church than in terms of some hierarchical head of a pyramid organization. That later understanding is a corruption of Petrine primacy. But Petrine primacy, I’m convinced, is real and essential to the life of the Church.
And why does the word “needed” even come into this? Again, this whole way of talking about the question is wrong. It’s not about what is “needed” but about the organic life of the Church. I’m sure God could have chosen to act in all sorts of ways other than the way in which He has acted.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
You’re saying that they weren’t originally Anti-Popes. Where do you get that idea? The fact that it wasn’t obvious to many in Europe that they were Anti-Popes doesn’t mean that they weren’t. It’s perfectly legitimate for RCs to say “only the Roman succession was valid–the other two never were, but at the time it was confusing and many people didn’t realize this.” After all, there were always those who supported Urban VI and his successors–much of Europe did. You’re simply assuming that there’s no meaningful way to say that these people were right all along. Why are you assuming this?
You may believe this. But you haven’t substantiated your claim.
What is your reason for rejecting the possibility that Urban VI and his successors were the only valid Popes during the years of the Schism?
If that’s a valid possibility, your argument fails.
Edwin
Stephen168
New member
johnpauls might take some time and respond to Contarini before we move on
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: As far as three popes, there never has been three popes at the same time. There was confusion as to who was the legitimate pope by good men on all sides, but never three popes. There has only been ONE legitimate pope and pretenders who were not pope. I’ll try to make a long story short paraphrasing my source. My source is chapter 18 beginning on page 163-166 in the book titled POPE FICTION by Patrick Madrid, Basilica Press San Diego, 1999. The book explains many of the fictitious things anti-Catholics like to throw out about the popes. I recommend It as a good and fast reference for any Catholic.
Pope Gregory XI moved the Holy See back to Rome after seventy years exile in Avignon. Gregory XI died in Rome 1378. Pope Urban VI (the legitimate pope) was elected. He changed after his election becoming difficult to work with and alienated his supporters. Thirteen members of the Sacred College met secretly and elected the anti-pope, Clement VII, who moved to Avignon. They mutually excommunicated each other. There was confusion in the Catholic world as to who was the legitimate pope.
Both Pope Urban VI (legitimate pope) and the anti-pope Clement VII died. Pope Boniface IX (legitimate pope) succeeded Urban VI. The anti-pope Benedict XIII succeeded the anti-pope Clement VII. Attempts were made for reconciliation, but failed. Boniface IX (legit) had a short reign. His successor was Innocent II (legit), who was succeeded by Gregory XII (legit). The anti-pope Bendedict XIII was still living.
To make matters worse a council met in Pisa in 1409 and elected another anti- pope John XXIII. Finally in 1414 with the Council of Constance, Gregory XII (legit) abdicated and the anti-popes Benedict XIII (anti-pope) and John XXIII (anti-pope) were removed from their sees. In 1417 the Council of Constance then elected Martin V (legit), who was accepted by all.
C
CMatt25
Guest
I understand you say the doctrine was out of its historical line. But why needed sooner? Simple. Jesus supposedly built His Church upon the primacy of the one Peter and each single successor bishop of Rome if we listen to the Roman faith. But you say most historians agree there was not a single bishop of Rome till well into the 2nd century. Christ died in something like 33 AD. So in that case the whole idea of the single bishop of Rome being the earthly head would not it would seem be what God put in place when He built His Church. Or else why would He not have made certain of a single bishop of Rome from the get go? Not a century and half later.
Stephen168
New member
Name the ‘doctrine’ to which you are referring and define it.
J
johnpauls
Guest
jlhargus:
You may want to read up a bit on history. This would be a good place to start.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_schism
The fact that there were 3 different Popes at one time is not a historically debated issue, nor factious. Undoubtedly, there are always church members who will spin anything they can, but main stream history places this Pope issue in the fact column. The church itself admits most all of this happening, so I am surprised some would still argue its validity.
What I think funny about this situation is that it was not like one group of cardinals appointed a certain Pope, and then another different group of cardinals appointed who they thought should be Pope. This is the SAME group of cardinals appointing all three Popes, then trying to undo what they did…only making matters worse.
Good luck with your reading…
You may want to read up a bit on history. This would be a good place to start.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_schism
The fact that there were 3 different Popes at one time is not a historically debated issue, nor factious. Undoubtedly, there are always church members who will spin anything they can, but main stream history places this Pope issue in the fact column. The church itself admits most all of this happening, so I am surprised some would still argue its validity.
What I think funny about this situation is that it was not like one group of cardinals appointed a certain Pope, and then another different group of cardinals appointed who they thought should be Pope. This is the SAME group of cardinals appointing all three Popes, then trying to undo what they did…only making matters worse.
Good luck with your reading…
Stephen168
New member
Nor does it have much to do with Apostolic Succession. You seem to avoid discussion it, so I have to wonder if you mis-titled this thread or if your are flogging a strawman.
C
CMatt25
Guest
In discussion with Contarini he mentioned the Petrine ministry. But just as Wmscott said he “could less if the OP is coming from a perspective opposite of what the Catholic Church teaches” and you didn’t seem to care how others define succession, I am not overly concerned myself whether you call it doctrine or ministry or what. But what I am referring to is the bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor being the leading shepherd as described below.
IV. The Petrine ministry today
A. Where can we find in the Church today a ministry like the one exercised by St. Peter?
Catholics claim it can only be in the “See” of St. Peter, Rome, from which the successors of St. Peter have always shepherded and strengthened the Church.
catholiceducation.org/articles/lesson_plans/lp0002.html
“We discussed last time how Jesus intended Peter (and those who would be appointed to carry on Peter’s ministry) to be the leading shepherd and unifying rock of the Church community.”
catholiceducation.org/articles/lesson_plans/lp0008.html
Yet if it is correct as Contarini says that “according to the majority of modern historians, there probably was not a single bishop of Rome until about half-way through the second century”, then there was not a single leading shepherd.
Contarini also mentioned what he described as “the later Roman Catholic way of thinking”. That sounds to me as if thinking was evolving and being formed as time went on.
Stephen168
New member
So you’re not talking about Apostolic Succession either.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Not unless Peter was an Apostle and the bishop of Rome his successor.
I am not going to get into a semantics game on this with you and this will be my last response to you.
Whether they are or not by the Catholic Church is not of much importance to me. But it seems apparent the petrine ministry and apostolic succession should be considered related in this sense:
Peter was an apostle and the bishop of Rome. And the bishop of Rome is believed to be his successor.
Peter and apostolic succession. 
Catholics believe the visible head of the Church on earth is the bishop of Rome, the apostolic successor of Peter. But if the majority of historians say there was not one bishop of Rome for a century and a half, then there was not one apostolic successor to succeed Peter for quite some time. Long past the time when Catholics believe Jesus built His church upon Peter.
And then it was not even until the 3rd century until Peter’s apostolic successors declared their authority as Peter’s apostolic successors. Even further past Christ’s time on earth.
Apostolic Succession
Roman claim
The principle underlying the Roman claim is contained in the idea of succession…
Now the Roman Pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position, and perform the functions of St. Peter; they are, therefore, his successors.
Beginning with the middle of the second century, there exists a universal consensus as to Peter’s martyrdom in Rome.
In the third century the popes claim authority from the fact that they are St. Peter’s successors.
newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm
Stephen168
New member
Peter was not the only Apostle, and Rome has never been the only diocese in the Catholic Church. The Bishop of Rome is not the only Bishop who can claim ‘succession’ from the Apostles.Not unless Peter was an Apostle and the bishop of Rome his successor.
I am not going to get into a semantics game on this with you and this will be my last response to you.
Whether they are or not by the Catholic Church is not of much importance to me. But it seems apparent the petrine ministry and apostolic succession should be considered related in this sense:
Peter was an apostle and the bishop of Rome. And the bishop of Rome is believed to be his successor.
As a Catholic, I believe the Bishop of Rome has a claim of succession from the Apostle Peter, and all Bishops should be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but this is a more specific subject then Apostolic Succession in general.
You may call it ‘semantics’ but defining terms is necessary for a fruitful disccusion. Realize you are discussing the history of one diocese in Christendom and not necessarily the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. Carry on.
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: Could you be more specific as to what I need to read. I scanned your link I see nothing contradicting what I posted.
JL: The FACT there were 3 different person electred to be THE POPE doesn’t make three popes. Only one was the legitiment POPE the non-ligits were anti-popes Even if electred by the SAME cardinals and people where confused as to who was THE POPE. Not even the cardinals who elected the others believed or claimed there were three ligit popes at the same time. The confusion was caused because people were not SURE who was THE LIGIT POPE. There was not three ligit popes two had to be anti-popes. Maybe you can clarify what so called SPIN I am putting on this?
C
ChadS
Guest
There are two things wrong with this post. First off you keep confusing apostolic succession with succession of the various bishops of Rome. As I mentioned in a previous post all validly consecrated Catholic bishops share in apostolic succession, just as much as the Bishop of Rome does. Apostolic succession describes the early apostles, as described in the NT taking the great commission seriously and when establishing new communities passing on their teaching and healing authority to different successors when they couldn’t be everywhere at once. This was passed on from bishop to bishop and age to age up until our present time.Peter was an apostle and the bishop of Rome. And the bishop of Rome is believed to be his successor.
Catholics believe the visible head of the Church on earth is the bishop of Rome, the apostolic successor of Peter. But if the majority of historians say there was not one bishop of Rome for a century and a half, then there was not one apostolic successor to succeed Peter for quite some time. Long past the time when Catholics believe Jesus built His church upon Peter.
The other thing is you keep talking about the “majority of historians” and in another post you said “many” historians. That’s incredibly vague and doesn’t describe or say anything about your claims and lends absolutely no credibility to what you say. If you’re going to quote historians give us names, citations and make sure it’s in context. Other than that I have a lot of historians that say a lot of things too.
ChadS
J
johnpauls
Guest
You claimed there were not three Popes at one time - just anti-popes. Unlike other times when there were anti-popes, this situation was very unique. All three Popes had legitimate claims to the chair of Peter - at the same time in history. What I think you fail to consider is that, once elected by an authoritative conclave of Cardinals, a Pope cannot be forced to resign. In this case, it was the 3rd Pope elected to came out with the backing of the Cardinals - while at a later time the first Pope resigned his position, and the second was excommunicated for a bogus claim - obviously since he would not resign. No doubt the first Pope was given the same ultimatum. Therefore, three Popes were in existence at one time all possessing the same legitimacy.
I suppose your point would be well taken if it came about that the first Pope elected maintained his office…then it could be said that the other two were illegitimate since there already was a Pope. However, that was not the case. The third Pope elected was the only Pope that retained his position.
C
ChadS
Guest
If what the other poster said is true one Pope was elected by 13 cardinals. I’m not positive but I imagine that even then there were a lot more cardinals than just 13. If that is the case then they had no authority or even reason to convene to attempt to elect a pope.
ChadS
- Status