church tradition

[BrianH]

therefore it possibly means that there were no Popes at all at the time?

You may have an “acorn” of a papacy…there would be an acorn of truth in that. But head of the universal church, well claims that would get you ignored just like Victor did when he tried to assert a special role from himself…of course Catholic apologists will claim that his excommunication was “lifted” as opposed to ignored, but that is another story…

 

[johnnydigit]

how about the role of a bishop, and the succession of the laying on of hands?

 

[KofC660]

The fact that there are contradictory lists proves there was some oral tradition of the Bishops of Rome after St Peter. If the list were fabricated, it would have been easily copied. However, if the tradition was oral, that is, somebody just kind of remembering who was Bishop of Rome in the past, then you would expect a few different sources and a few different answers - the people giving the chronology would have surely been rather old men, with bad memories.

 

[Wolseley]

This is even better than what I quoted!! “Sacred Tradition” is even more confused that I thought!

No reply to my post regarding the conflicting reports of stone removal, Brian? Surely, if Scripture is the final arbiter, you should be able to explain those for me.

Which says quite a bit in and of itself does it not? The Catholic church cannot give an accurate list of the head of the entire church?

Maybe you can tell me why your Bible contains these discrepancies:

Jesus went to the territory of the Gergasenes, where he met two demon-possessed men. (Matthew 8:28)
Jesus went to the territory of the Gadarenes, where he met one demon-possessed man. (Mark 5:1)

So was it Gergesa, or Gadara? One man, or two?

How about this one?

“Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value” (Matthew 27:9).

The only problem is, no such prophecy exists in Jeremiah. You will search in vain. There is an allusion to the verse found in Zechariah 11:12-13…but that still isn’t Jeremiah.

So, did Matthew get it wrong?

Or this one:

“And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.” (Mark 15:25).
“And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour…Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.” (John 19:14/16)

So was Jesus crucified at “the third hour” (9 AM), or at “the sixth hour” (12 noon)? Who’s right—Mark, or John?

I’m sure that your church has an answer for these oddities—if it does not, then that says quite a bit in and of itself, does it not? Your church cannot give an accurate account of the events described in your Bible?

Goodness, this is confusing! I’d really appreciate it if you could explain these to my satisfaction. Thanks!

 

[BrianH]

Are you under the impression I am arguing for inerrancy? I am not. If I were, of course you would have a point. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with United Methodist doctrine?

 

[Wolseley]

Okay. If you’re not arguing for inerrancy, then I guess it’s a moot point. I merely found it interesting that you’d take the Catholic Church to task for the discrepancies found in the list of popes, while you would ignore the discrepancies found in Scripture such as those I listed above.

No matter. In any event, the list of popes, while certainly a tradition, is not Apostolic Tradition anyway----it’s a “small t” thing as opposed to the “big T” thing, so it doesn’t affect the veracity or accuracy of Apostolic Tradition one way or the other.

 

[BrianH]

Okay. If you’re not arguing for inerrancy, then I guess it’s a moot point. I merely found it interesting that you’d take the Catholic Church to task for the discrepancies found in the list of popes, while you would ignore the discrepancies found in Scripture such as those I listed above.

No matter. In any event, the list of popes, while certainly a tradition, is not Apostolic Tradition anyway----it’s a “small t” thing as opposed to the “big T” thing, so it doesn’t affect the veracity or accuracy of Apostolic Tradition one way or the other.

It is interesting to me that you would think a person would “ignore” anything in scripture. Innerantists write volumes on this subject, it is hardly ignored. Regardless though…

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is even better than what I quoted!! “Sacred Tradition” is even more confused that I thought!

It isn’t. From a Protestant lense it is.

Which says quite a bit in and of itself does it not? The Catholic church cannot give an accurate list of the head of the entire church?

I just gave you a list. You just don’t believe that Cletus is the same as Anacletus. I provided you a link that support the evidence.

Ok. Of course we know that Eusebius has some questionable marks as a historian and Irenaeus has Jesus dying closer to Social Security age.

Eusebius is a remarkable Christian history.

Fascinating

No comment there.

I see

No comment either.

Goodness this is confusing

Isn’t this what I just said?

The truth is they have no idea I suspect
What list is infallible? I know that atheists have used this argument as well. I hate that they can use this as ammunition!

atheism.about.com/od/popesandthepapacy/a/numbering.htm
even 50 years ago it is a work in progress!
time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,778924,00.html

Look BrianH, since we are both discussion the Succession of St. Peter. We might as well start a new thread. I think we are derailing the topic "Church Tradition. How about it?

You can check the Vatican website. They have the official list.