Catholic....Roman or not?

[PC_Master]

That’s an interesting term, but I wouldn’t use it as there are multiple churches which claim to have apostolic succession from Peter.

 

[Bishopite]

You should notice three things…

1. The term catholic can be used to mean universal, and commonly was in the early days of the church, as that is exactly what the word meant (even your own definitions further down attest to this fact). The Wikipedia article on “Catholic” has some good information on the distinction.

Right and the early church fathers writings affirm “Catholic” authority in its creeds. You just can’t get around it I’m afraid, no matter how you try. Catholic of the early church means Catholic of today.

1. That the Roman Catholic Church (I use the term for disambiguation, referring to the church whose headquarters are in Vatican City, Rome) traces itself to apostolic times doesn’t mean that that claim is true or factual. It claims this is the case.

Actually, most people use it as a pegoritive term as when it started which is in the sixteenth century. The Anglicans used “Roman” that way since they thought they were “Catholic.”

1. It’s more than likely that the Wikipedia article in question was largely written by Catholics, and thus calling it secular is not accurate.

Well, if you knew anything of history, you would know that even secual sources affirm Catholicism’s antiquity as being from Jesus Christ. Like it or not my friend, this is the historical truth.

Had they spoken English, they’d have called themselves “the universal church”, which is a tradition that most protestants still adhere to. I agree that at that point in history there could well have been a single united Christian church. However, after the shcisms, particularly the schism between east and west, the Roman Catholic Church acted as though it was the one true church and everyone else was not. You can’t do that unless you have some objective proof of doing so. When each side claims it’s right, you have to have some objective proof to decide.

And what do you make of the councils? They are clearly Catholic bishops usurping authority upon the Christian faithful.

Let’s take the East Assyrian Church, for example. Or even the Orthodox Church of Antioch. Or, how about the other, more commonly known schismatic churches? The Roman Catholic Church felt the need to declare these groups as not being a part of God’s church, and these churches did the same for Rome. So, who’s right?

Well, wait a minute. They adhere to sacraments, to ecumenical councils as being authoritative, do you?

Would you care to show me any reputable historian that claims that the Roman Catholic Church is the one that was referred to in all of history?

I’ve shown a few as evidence. I don’t need to do any more homework on the issue as ALL historians affirm that Catholicism is the ancient church from Jesus. When a Catholic shows you a quote from an early church father, you question its validity. The poor box you have put yourself in doesn’t allow anyone save God alone to show you that Catholic always means “Catholic church.”

You’ll note that both of those sources mention that the term catholic can refer to the “universal church” which can include those not in communion with the Pope. You should also note that those sources mention that the name Catholic was initially referring to the undivided church. After the schisms, each side still held that it was the true church, and they took respectively different names.

True. However, Catholicism is universal in its liturgy and dogmas and is this true of ANY other world wide universal church?

 

[porthos11]

You have to establish that the term catholic exclusively applies to those in communion with the See of Rome (not of Peter, for multiple reasons) first.

Yes, it will have to be established.

Yes, I’d agree, but this church didn’t have a pope as such. However, that sort of thing we’ll get to in another thread.

It did; the guy’s name was Peter. The Papacy is not defined by place.

Likewise, Catholics claiming to be the one true church doesn’t necessarily make it so.

That’s right. Hence one needs to look to history for that.

 

[SPH1]

Exactly. The church headquartered in Rome is the Roman Catholic Church. To clarify – Roman Catholics (not to be confused with the sub-group of Latin Rite Roman Catholics) would wish themselves to be called “The Catholic Church” because that implies that there is no catholic church outside of the Roman one. However, that is obviously (given the other denominations mentioned) hotly contested. To not acknowledge that others claim to be a part of the Catholic (aka Universal) church, even though Rome doesn’t recognize them, is just poor debating.

True, Protestants have tried to hijack the label Catholic. Some, like many Anglicans, believe that the “Roman Catholic” Church is merely one branch of the Catholic Church. Other Protestants, I firmly believe, use “Roman Catholic” to separate Catholics from the supposed true Catholic Church, that “Roman Catholics” are not real Catholics. (Which one is your view?)

Lack of communion (is one thing that) separates Protestantism from being a true Catholic Church in any sense. Many denominations are not in communion with other denominations. Heck, even various Lutheran and Presbyterian groups are not in communion with other Lutheran and Presbyterian groups. That’s just Protestantism. Then throw in the lack of communion between Protestantism, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. And you call this the ancient Catholic Church?

Simply calling oneself Christian does not necessarily mean that one is in the Catholic Church. What one refers by “Christendom” is not necessarily synonomus with the with Catholic Church.

Why don’t Protestants just acknowledge that they are not the Catholic Church? Why pretend to hold to the ancient Creeds referencing the Catholic Church? How could Protestantism even come up with a binding Creed over the whole “Catholic/Universal” Church?

Where is Protestant denominationalism in Scripture? Where are all of the Biblical Churches that were not in communion with one another? Those Biblical Churches that did not share the same faith and teachings, that were not in one accord? Where in Scripture does it reference INDIVIDUAL Christians determining their own doctrine by their private judgment?

 

[mllevaleur]

Being ROMAN Catholic is extremely important to me because it emphasizes my connection to the Holy Father. You will find in the U.S.A. many alleged Catholics who go to Mass and receive Communion regularly, but reject the teachings and admonitions of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. They claim to be Catholic, but practice birth control and proudly proclaim themselves to be pro-abortion (the word they use is pro-choice). I feel a deep need to be identified differently than they are, and I find that Roman Catholic does the job very nicely.

Hmm…I find this line of thinking very odd.

So if someone refers to themselves as “Catholic” you assume they are of the cafeteria variety, but if they call themselves Roman Catholic you assume they are 100% faithful? Kind of an odd association there! I’ve never heard of that…so I think, although YOU think it makes a difference, most people out there won’t realize the difference, so that kind of defeats the purpose doesn’t it?

As for emphasizing communion with the pope…that’s not what “Roman” is referring to (despite the claims of some uninformed non-Catholics). It’s referring to the rite we belong to, not the fact that we’re in communion with the pope. Eastern Catholics are just as much in communion, but they are not Roman Catholic.

I, personally, don’t have a deep need to change my name to disassociate myself with cafeteria Catholics…they are my brothers and sisters in Christ too, even if they are dissenting, and I think one can pretty easily tell by actions whether one is faithful to the magisterium or not. I, for one, strive to be faithful 100%…I simply prefer the term Catholic, as I enjoy being associated with my Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters as well.

Also, being married to a Frenchman and getting a non-American perspective, I see that for some reaon America is pretty much the only place where people commonly call themselves Roman Catholic as a rule rather than just Catholic…and I can’t help but think it has to do with the rabid anti-Catholicism from some protestants here. I think the anti-Catholics used the term so much that it seeped into Catholic vocabulary unawares! So, I just prefer not to use it myself.

It’s cool if you do, of course, I’d just never heard that line of reasoning for doing so!

 

[PC_Master]

Right and the early church fathers writings affirm “Catholic” authority in its creeds. You just can’t get around it I’m afraid, no matter how you try. Catholic of the early church means Catholic of today.

That this is not the case is the entire point of my post. I contend that Catholic, at the time of those writings, referred to the word’s original meaning, that being the Universal Church, which was not, at that time, composed of a particular religious organization headed by a pope.

Actually, most people use it as a pegoritive term as when it started which is in the sixteenth century. The Anglicans used “Roman” that way since they thought they were “Catholic.”

Just like most other Christian denominations believe themselves to be catholic in some way. How do you prove that the RCC’s claims are right?

Well, if you knew anything of history, you would know that even secual sources affirm Catholicism’s antiquity as being from Jesus Christ. Like it or not my friend, this is the historical truth.

Yes, but you’re still assuming Catholic == Roman Catholic (that is, the organization which calls itself the Catholic Church and is headquartered in Rome).

And what do you make of the councils? They are clearly Catholic bishops usurping authority upon the Christian faithful.

Was there a point you’re trying to make?

Well, wait a minute. They adhere to sacraments, to ecumenical councils as being authoritative, do you?

Why does it matter?

…ALL historians affirm that Catholicism is the ancient church from Jesus. When a Catholic shows you a quote from an early church father, you question its validity. The poor box you have put yourself in doesn’t allow anyone save God alone to show you that Catholic always means “Catholic church.”

Show me one historian that isn’t Roman Catholic which can demonstrate in some tangible sense, that the current Roman Catholic Church is the same church that was started by Christ. I’ve looked, and I can’t find one.

True. However, Catholicism is universal in its liturgy and dogmas and is this true of ANY other world wide universal church?

Perhaps not (though Roman Catholocism isn’t universal – there are slight differences in the rites), but how does that actually validate your claims?

It did; the guy’s name was Peter. The Papacy is not defined by place.

As the papacy itself is a hotly debated topic, I’ll not get into most of the details of it in this thread. However, even if Peter was the first pope, there are at least 3 or 4 major denominations that claim succession from him as proof that they are the true Catholic Church.

That’s right. Hence one needs to look to history for that.

I have looked at history, and what history seems to indicate is a gradual evolution into the Roman Catholic Church of today.

 

[PC_Master]

True, Protestants have tried to hijack the label Catholic. Some, like many Anglicans, believe that the “Roman Catholic” Church is merely one branch of the Catholic Church. Other Protestants, I firmly believe, use “Roman Catholic” to separate Catholics from the supposed true Catholic Church, that “Roman Catholics” are not real Catholics. (Which one is your view?)

The term catholic simply means universal (wasn’t originally a name), and thus it can’t be hijacked by anyone. The claim of being the true universal church usually varies because of differences in belief in what the universal church actually is.

Then throw in the lack of communion between Protestantism, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. And you call this the ancient Catholic Church?

When all were unified in a single body – yes. Now they’re separate groups, so no one can specifically claim to be the whole of the universal church.

Simply calling oneself Christian does not necessarily mean that one is in the Catholic Church. What one refers by “Christendom” is not necessarily synonomus with the with Catholic Church.

Again, that varies depending on your interpretation of the term “catholic church” (note, I choose not to add caps, because early writings don’t contain them, which indicates the use of the word is as I suggest).

Why don’t Protestants just acknowledge that they are not the Catholic Church?

Because they believe they are a part of it, just as Roman Catholics do?

Where is Protestant denominationalism in Scripture? Where are all of the Biblical Churches that were not in communion with one another? Those Biblical Churches that did not share the same faith and teachings, that were not in one accord? Where in Scripture does it reference INDIVIDUAL Christians determining their own doctrine by their private judgment?

Let’s be a little more simple – where in scripture or writings from the first two centuries after that does it specifically identify the term “catholic church” as being the proper name of a church headquartered in Rome? Where is there anything to indicate that the term catholic church was not being used simply as a generic term to reference all of Christendom?

So if someone refers to themselves as “Catholic” you assume they are of the cafeteria variety, but if they call themselves Roman Catholic you assume they are 100% faithful? Kind of an odd association there! I’ve never heard of that…so I think, although YOU think it makes a difference, most people out there won’t realize the difference, so that kind of defeats the purpose doesn’t it?

Common use does indeed cause trouble sometimes. It’s not unlike many other words have come into the vernacular as being something different than they were. Kleenex, which is actually a specific brand of tissue, is now a generic term which actually can refer to any brand of tissue. In common use, when you say Kleenex, people automatically associate it with “generic term for tissue” in their minds, even though this is technically not accurate. Likewise, while Catholic has entered the vernacular as a name of a church, it’s simply a word which means universal.

As for emphasizing communion with the pope…that’s not what “Roman” is referring to (despite the claims of some uninformed non-Catholics). It’s referring to the rite we belong to, not the fact that we’re in communion with the pope. Eastern Catholics are just as much in communion, but they are not Roman Catholic.

Knowlegeable Roman Catholics I’ve spoken to clarify that the correct name for the rite is the Latin Rite, not the Roman Rite.

Even if the name were actually the Catholic Church, that term is ambiguous, as several churches claim that in their title. Thus, disambiguation is required.

Can we get back to the original point? Can someone show me definitive evidence of any kind which demonstrates that the Roman Catholic Church (as we have it today) is the exact same church as was referenced by the term “catholic church” written in the early centuries following Christ?

 

[Subrosa]

My overall point was that Roman Catholocism claims its validity based on apostolic succession, but that apostolic succession, as far as anyone can tell, never specifically referenced the Roman church in the early centuries after Christ’s death. In fact, it wasn’t until several centuries later that this was the case.

You know this how? There are many extent early writings that state exactly that the Roman church has apostolic succession from Peter. Read Eusebius “Church History” as an example.

The Roman church is not the only church to have valid apostolic succession. So do the Copts, the Orthodox, the Armenian Catholics and many others.

The church you belong to does not.

For you to deny this is to deny the truth. You do so out of ignorance.

How about the most obvious (and from what I can tell, earliest) one – the East Assyrian Church? I’ll admit I don’t know a ton about this church, but it seems clear that they believe their authority comes from apostolic succession.

Yup. Valid succession.

Catholic, as in universal…I totally agree with that. However, that doesn’t mean the Roman Catholic Church can claim that the references are specific to it alone, rather than the universal body of Christ, as the term would have been understood in that era. Also, I’ve studied this history from pro-RCC (Roman Catholic Church) and pro-Protestant sources, and consulted a lot of other historical info that I could find as well. Bear in mind, it’s not possible to have totally unbiased sources.

The Roman church has never claimed exclusivity. This is your claim. I’ll admit that some RC members do so out of ignorance, but it has NEVER been claimed by the church. Not once.

The Church does say that those churches not in communion with the Bishop of Rome are in schism. This does not imply that those churches are not valid particular churches. They are just not in communion with Rome.

History is divided on that. Some believe Paul ordained Linus, for example. Others claim that Clement succeded Peter.

Show us your sources, for instance. I have studied church history to a very great extent and have never come across what you speak of. Are you lying? Remember the 8th Commandment?

The Roman Catholic Church came into existence during the Apostolic age. (Read the last chapters of Acts)

All churches at that time were trying to maintain ONE system of belief, which is strongly implied by the word “catholic”.

A agree that there may have well been one united church which was referred to as universal, or “catholic”. However, you cannot imply that this was specifically the Roman Catholic Church.

Sorry, I never implied it. The church of Rome in Acts is without question the very same one that I am a member of. All those other churches are also catholic, but not Roman Catholic. They are thier own particular church.

Here’s somemore info…usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm

Your church is not catholic. Not that that is a bad thing. You’re a christian which makes you an OK guy! But you cannot claim a valid apostolic succession.

more on the next post…

 

[Subrosa]

Many of those churches remain and still call themselves “catholic” because of the system of belief. All of the Orthodox churches, the Coptic Church of Egypt, the Armenian Church and the Assyrian Church of the East are examples. All have Sacraments, the priesthood, bishops, veneration of Mary and many, many other similar beliefs. It is what it means to be “catholic”.

So they’re catholic…but not the “one true holy apostolic church”?

Actually, they are. All the churches that have a valid apostolic succession and have taken part in the earliest councils are the “one true holy apostolic church”. Again, yours is not. Again, not a bad thing.

If you go talk to any of them they will tell you the same thing. Go over to “Eastern Christianity” and ask the question. See what you get.

the Roman Church trying to hold onto its prominant position and the Constantinople church trying to gain position. The two bishops excommunicated each other. The seperation came over time and the schism was the culmination.

Possibly, but as you can see, serious action was taken for what may have been a political reason. Hardly showing that God’s “one true church” will do correctly.

Yup. The Roman church fully admits that. It’s back on track now. The Popes of the last 150 years espescially have been the true shephards that they were meant to be. Seperation of church and state is the best thing that happened to the church in my opinion. It takes away the distraction of state issues and lets the bishops focus on church issues, theology and pastoring.

Since then the excommunications have been rescinded and the churches are trying to work out differences. (

www.patriarchate.org) The last Pontiff, Pope John Paul II has called the two seperated churches the “two lungs” of Christ’s church.
There’s been a lot of movement toward unification (even with protestants) in the past century, and all indications are that this will continue. This, however, is a flaw for another thread.

A product of Vatican II. Yup, the Roman Catholic Church is the leader on the issue of ecumenism. (“flaw”? eh? why “flaw”? :ehh: )

Subrosa

 

[Marsha_Adams]

So if someone refers to themselves as “Catholic” you assume they are of the cafeteria variety, but if they call themselves Roman Catholic you assume they are 100% faithful?
mllevaleur;2372016:

No, I don’t assume that they are of the cafeteria variety, but if they refer to themselves as Roman Catholic, it is a pretty good sign that they are not. Additionally, I know people who call themselves Catholic who haven’t been to Mass in decades.
mllevaleur;2372016:

As for emphasizing communion with the pope…that’s not what “Roman” is referring to (despite the claims of some uninformed non-Catholics). It’s referring to the rite we belong to, not the fact that we’re in communion with the pope.
mllevaleur;2372016:

Yes, I realize that it refers to the rite we belong to, but all of the rites are in union with Rome. You would never in the U.S. find a Coptic Rite Catholic or a Malabar (sp?) Rite Catholic refer to him/herself as Catholic

 

[Mannyfit75]

My overall point was that Roman Catholocism claims its validity based on apostolic succession, but that apostolic succession, as far as anyone can tell, never specifically referenced the Roman church in the early centuries after Christ’s death. In fact, it wasn’t until several centuries later that this was the case.

It wasn’t after 3 centuries that the Bible we see now came about through the Council of the Church. Christian history shows the handing down of authority from the Apostles and to the bishops.

But that my friend is another topic of discussion. So I won’t go there.

How about the most obvious (and from what I can tell, earliest) one – the East Assyrian Church? I’ll admit I don’t know a ton about this church, but it seems clear that they believe their authority comes from apostolic succession.

The Catholic Church affirms that Eastern Orthodox Church or the East Assyrian Church has valid Sacraments thus have valid Holy Orders, and recognizes them to have Apostolic Succession.

Catholic, as in universal…I totally agree with that. However, that doesn’t mean the Roman Catholic Church can claim that the references are specific to it alone, rather than the universal body of Christ, as the term would have been understood in that era. Also, I’ve studied this history from pro-RCC (Roman Catholic Church) and pro-Protestant sources, and consulted a lot of other historical info that I could find as well. Bear in mind, it’s not possible to have totally unbiased sources.

The Catholic Church, let us refrain from using the Word Roman because I think that itself negates the Eastern Rite Catholics, who are called Byzantine Rite. The Catholic Church alone is the only Church established by Jesus Christ. Hence from the Master’s own words, “You are Peter, and Upon this Rock I will build my Church.” He didn’t say Churches, he said church. There is only One Church.

History is divided on that. Some believe Paul ordained Linus, for example. Others claim that Clement succeded Peter.

Not really. Most Historians acknowledge that Peter was succeeded by Linus as Pope. Paul did indeed ordained Linus. We also know that Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome. So Linus succeeded Peter as the New Pope. Peter’s successor.

You’re basing your argument on the assumption that the current pope is valid. You need to establish that point first. Address the arguments given by the divergent groups, rather than simply saying “all who disagree with the Roman Catholic Church are wrong”.

No, I’m not. I’m basing my arguments on historical evidence that the Catholic Church is the Christian Church which Jesus Christ founded. Oh, yes everyone who disagree with the Catholic Church on moral and faith is wrong. I believe that 100%.

Again, you’re presupposing the interpretation of that promise, which you can’t do. You have to establish that first.

I’m not presupposing anything. I know what the CC teaches is true.

Again, rhetoric.

Your opinion

A agree that there may have well been one united church which was referred to as universal, or “catholic”. However, you cannot imply that this was specifically the Roman Catholic Church.

They have Popes then, and they also have bishops. So it was Catholic. There were neither Protestant nor Orthodox. Protestant Churches did not exist until 1517 and Eastern Orthodox didn’t came about until 1054 AD. St. Ignatius of Antioch said in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans in 110 AD wrote, Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

So they’re catholic…but not the “one true holy apostolic church”?

They are One True Holy and Apostolic. Not Protestant.

Possibly, but as you can see, serious action was taken for what may have been a political reason. Hardly showing that God’s “one true church” will do correctly.

God promised the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, so the Catholic Church is the only One Church establish by Jesus Christ. There are no other Churches.

There’s been a lot of movement toward unification (even with protestants) in the past century, and all indications are that this will continue. This, however, is a flaw for another thread.

Unification will come. First the Catholic Church will reconcil itself to the Eastern Orthodox Church, and sooner or later all Protestants will convert and join Jesus Christ only One Church which is Catholic. But that is subject for another thread.

 

[Usagi]

PC, I think you’d be best off at this point to start your thread on the origins of the papacy.

(If you’ve already started it, please link to it in this thread, as I am interested in following the discussion on that topic, and I’m sure others here are as well.)

As others have pointed out, the (Roman) Catholic Church recognizes the valid apostolic succession of the other ancient churches (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East). Recent papal statements like the “two lungs” analogy indicate that the RCC even feels itself in some sense incomplete in the absence of those sister churches.

From the viewpoint of the RCC, the Anglicans once had valid apostolic succession, but lost it when their understanding of the nature and function of the priesthood changed. Obviously, the Anglicans don’t listen to us on that point. Other Protestant groups that care about apostolic succession are in a similar situation. Note that pretty much all the churches in this category get their claims of apostolic succession through their former association with the RCC, so they can’t really turn around and say that they have succession and we don’t…

When you’re talking about which of the ancient churches is the most valid successor to the undivided Catholic Church of the early centuries, the antiquity (or lack thereof) of the papal office is going to be the central issue dividing the RCC from everyone else. That’s why I’m thinking that going deeper into your topic on the papacy is likely to get you better answers at this point. Hammering on the fact that several churches claim apostolic succession is just going to make us say “Yup, they sure do. We even agree with several of them.”

Usagi

P.S. The churches that separated after Ephesus and Chalcedon respectively were long considered heretical by the RC and EO churches (and, presumably, vice versa). More recently, discussion with the Assyrian Church of the East (formerly called the Nestorian Church) has revealed that the ancient disagreement was more semantic than anything else, and the RCC now has intercommunion with the ACotE, though the two are not actually united at this time.

 

[jmcrae]

That this is not the case is the entire point of my post. I contend that Catholic, at the time of those writings, referred to the word’s original meaning, that being the Universal Church, which was not, at that time, composed of a particular religious organization headed by a pope.

At that time, it did indeed contain every Christian alive at the time - this doesn’t mean that it was only a spiritual idea, however, or that people were “claiming Jesus” without going through the Sacraments of Initiation and becoming formal members of the visible and organized Church. It was, in fact, headed by a Pope (the Bishop of Rome) and it was also a very visible earthly organization with a readily discernable heirarchy of authority (that’s how the pagans and the Jews knew who to kill), regularized Sacraments, and regular meetings for worship and for administrative functions.

Just like most other Christian denominations believe themselves to be catholic in some way. How do you prove that the RCC’s claims are right?

Those other organizations who claim to be Catholic know that they get the validity of their claim from their relationship with that Church that has for its head the Bishop of Rome. In fact, they insist that they have not lost the essential elements of their relationship with us, even though they currently happen to be in schism from us. But they can’t deny our authority without at the same time calling into question their own, since (other than the Orthodox churches) they get their own Apostolic Succession from the Bishop of Rome at some point in their history - thus, they can’t deny his validity without denying their own - after all, if he had no authority to consecrate the man who later became their Bishop, then that man was never a Bishop, and never had any authority of his own to consecrate anyone, either.

I have looked at history, and what history seems to indicate is a gradual evolution into the Roman Catholic Church of today.

There has certainly been growth and development over the past 2,000 years. We began at Pentecost with a population of about 5,000, and we currently have a population of 1.2 billion - obviously, logistics alone indicate that we need bigger buildings and more of them, better organized education systems, more outreach to the poor, and so on. In addition, we have come to understand doctrine better than we did before, and we have developed checks and balances to prevent or at least slow down the tide of heresy that keeps threatening to sweep into the Church.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Not really. Most Historians acknowledge that Peter was succeeded by Linus as Pope.
.

I think you forgot the word Catholic before the word historian. I’ve read an awful lot of history and I’d say you can not give historical substantiation to this comment, not in the universal bishop sense… The first bishop to ever even call himself the universal Bishop was Gregory…Centuries later.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I think you forgot the word Catholic before the word historian. I’ve read an awful lot of history and I’d say you can not give historical substantiation to this comment, not in the universal bishop sense… The first bishop to ever even call himself the universal Bishop was Gregory…Centuries later.

I read many historical books, but perhaps more than you. Peter is the first Pope period. I think many Catholic Apologists here have pointed out to you that there were no Protestants in those days. They didn’t exist until 1517.

 

[BrianH]

PC Master
History is divided on that. Some believe Paul ordained Linus, for example. Others claim that Clement succeded Peter.

Subrosa
Show us your sources, for instance. I have studied church history to a very great extent and have never come across what you speak of. Are you lying? Remember the 8th Commandment?

Here let me help, I have the quotes handy from my book. I do hope you apologize for calling someone a liar who it appears reads his history a little bit closer?

Tertullian

“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, — a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome,** which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter**.

Irenaues

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”

Apostolic Constitution

“Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these: — James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist.** Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter.”**

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Linus, Cletus, Clemens (Hegesippus, ap. Epiphanium, Canon of Mass).
Linus, Anencletus, Clemens (Irenaeus, Africanus ap. Eusebium).
Linus, Anacletus, Clemens (Jerome).
Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens (Poem against Marcion),
Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus [Hippolytus (?), “Liberian Catal.”- “Liber. Pont.”].
Linus, Clemens, Anacletus (Optatus, Augustine). “

 

[Wolseley]

Brian, I’m waiting for a reply over here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=162104&page=2

 

[BrianH]

Brian, I’m waiting for a reply over here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=162104&page=2

I apologize, I do not usually read your posts but I answered it for you

 

[Wolseley]

I apologize, I do not usually read your posts but I answered it for you

You don’t read MY posts?!?!??

(sob!) I am so crushed…

 

[clmowry]

Of what particular Churches are you speaking? It would make discussion much easier.

Chuck

Some of the first splits happened in the 400s. At this point, there obviously would have become distinctly separate groups. Interestingly, both call themselves Catholic to this day. Additionally, both claim a lineage of Patriarchs/Popes going back to Peter. Also, both claim the time in church history up until the split as part of their own.

So, how do we objetively tell which church was right?