How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

[n2thelight]

Peter was not a Pope at all much less the first

In the books of men, the following titles are commonly used with reference to a man: “Pope,” “Holy Father,” “Vicar of Christ,” “Sovereign Pontiff.” All of these are titles that rightly belong only to the Lord Jesus Christ and to God the Father. There is not a single instance in the Scriptures where any of the above titles are applied to a man. The term, “Holy Father” is used only once in the entire Bible, and it is used by Jesus in addressing God the Father. (John 17:11)

Among the above titles is the bold assertion that the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ.” A “vicar” is “One serving as a substitute or agent; one authorized to perform the functions of another in higher office.” (Webster). When one searches the Bible from cover to cover, he finds only one passage which gives an indication of a vicar of Christ or God. It is 2 Thess. 2:3-4; it is worded as follows:

“Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God.”
… (Edited to conform with the Forum Rules)

By David J. Riggs

bible.ca/cath-peter=pope.htm

 

[willi8]

willi8,
It is common for non-C’s to state their opinion as if it is Truth. It is very difficult to teach our beliefs to non-C’s because of the blinders they wear only seeing their own Church’s teachings. You are here on a Catholic forum and are wanting us to prove our beliefs to you.

To begin with, I’m sorry if my posts made you think that I was on this Catholic forum simply because I wanted you to prove your beliefs to me. This is not the reason. I’m on this forum with to mainly learn more about the scriptures and the many debates which surround them. Why a Catholic forum? Because I grew up Catholic and if my experience have served me well, the Catholic church has Great history on early Christianity and some of the best Biblical scholars in the world. And no, I don’t have blinders on. If you read some other of my posts on this forum, you will see that I readily aknowledge my lack of knowledge compared to others on this forum. I also commonly thank others when they have enhanced my knowledge on a subject. I’m sure there will always be some bias, but for the most part the Blinders are off.

It should be the other way around. Your Church came hundreds of years (1800 or so years?) after Catholicism. Maybe your beliefs are just a matter of interpretation. Mine are not self/personal interpretations. My beliefs come from a Church that got it’s teachings from Christ Himself. The Catholic Church teaches and interprets Scripture the same way today as it did then. It hasn’t changed, and I shouldn’t have to prove anything to you. You are the one making statements that just plain aren’t true. Where are you getting your information?

Yes, my church came many years later, but I believe it to be the restored church of Jesus Christ which he established in His time. I don’t doubt that your church received teachings from Christ but what makes you think that the Authority and Power the Lord established in His original church carried on to the Catholic Church??? This would qualify as your own personal belief and interpretation. No, you don’t have to prove anything to me and I really never asked anyone to do so.

Does it say in Scripture that the Church would suffer any apostasy, or that the gates of hell would prevail for any amount of time? Where does it say that?

**There are references which I believe suggest that the Church was headed towards apostasy. I think that even Catholics would agree that many church members of the time were falling away from the church. The debate is wheter or not the Church as a whole fell away or if it continued. 2 Thes 2:1-3 states,

" Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by bletter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first**, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

These saints in Thessalonia were concerned that the coming of the Lord was at hand. Paul essentially tells them not to worry because before the Lord can come again there must be a falling away first (Apostasy).

In Acts it states: 19 ¶ aRepent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Restitution simply means restoring to its original state. If the Church with its proper authority, power, and ordinances continued on the way the Lord established, why would their be a need of a restitution of ALL THINGS???

Now, I’m sure these scriptures could be interpreted differently, but I am only trying to show that there is some evidence that and Apostasy was looming. Other references include:

Amos 8: 11,
Acts 20: 29
1 Cor. 11: 18
Gal. 1: 6 .
Gal. 3: 1
1 Tim. 1: 6
1 Tim. 4: 1
2 Tim. 1: 15
2 Tim. 2: 18
2 Tim. 3: 5
2 Tim. 4: 4
Titus 1: 16

Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and he said that he would be with and guide His Church until the end of time. Are you saying that Jesus went back on His promise? Was Jesus unable to protect His Church? My “perspective” came from the Catholic Church who has always had that perspective. Yours is a different perspective taught by someone other than Jesus, or the Apostles or their successors, or their successors, etc…

**Jesus will not go back on his promise. The gates of hell will not ultimately prevail against His church. Jesus did not specify on time or how exactly this prophecy would come about. God also said that Israel was a chosen people and that he would be their protector. This didn’t mean that they couldn’t fall away at times, only that they will be ultimately redeemed by Him. **

Jesus gave his Deposit of Faith to the Apostles, established His Church and saw to it that his teachings would be preserved through her and that he would protect and guide her. That is what He said, and that is what we believe. It is not a matter of my own interpretation of what I think Scripture says. It is not just my faith or just my belief. It is a matter of Jesus’ One Truth that He taught, and that is what the Catholic Church has believed and taught for 2,000 years.

I’m not sure where it teaches this in the scriptures… Please clarify.

What makes you think that the Catholic Church isn’t the Church that Jesus established? It is historical proof that the early Church is the Catholic Church. I am amazed how over the last 500 years or so all the different denominations have taught so may untruths about the Catholic Church and the history of the Catholic Church.

I’m not sure how you can say that it is historical proof that the early church is the Catholic Church. By early Church I assume you mean the Church the Lord established. To do this you would have to prove that the Line of Authority from Christ was unbroken untill today. We know it went from Jesus to Peter, but then who. Do you really have proof???

The Catholic Church did safeguard Christianity. It teaches the same teachings today. The Holy Spirit did shape and guide the Church. That is why there has been no change to any doctrine whatsoever in matters of faith and morals. The Holy Spirit won’t allow His teachings to be changed by His Church. The Church did not fall away or apostosize. That is just what non-C Churches teach to justify their changes. Please prove when and where the Catholic Church fell away? What did it become then? Did the Catholic Church fall away before of after they penned the Bible? Did they believe the Truth and then just decide it wasn’t true and fall away? You won’t be able to prove your statements because there is not one bit of truth to those beliefs.

The Catholic church did many great things to preserve the teachings of Jesus Christ. I am greatful for that. Don’t assume that there hasn’t been change however. The councils of the early church debated over many topic like the Trinity and what should or shouldn’t be added to the cannon of scripture to name just two. The decisions made came down to votes and what the learned that was right. Where was revelation??? Other changes include how to baptize, the Pope, and even Catholic as the official name of the Church. These things among others changed from the time Jesus established his church. I can’t prove that the Catholic church fell away nor have I attempted to. Also, the Catholic church did not pen the Bible. They were a major factor in compiling the seperate writing into a cannon of scripture. Lastly, they just didn’t decide that it wasn’t true. The Lord decides whether or not to keep His Church, Authority, and ordinances on earth. My PERSONAL belief is that the took it, hence, the need for a restoration.

I believe the burden of proof lies with you and any non-C to prove the Truth of your beliefs, not with me to prove mine. The Catholic Church is the original Church and doesn’t need to prove anything. I am in no way, trying trying to discredit your beliefs on the basis of my own opinions. I share the beliefs of the Catholic Church and do not make up my own beliefs or share beliefs of those created by man 1500-1800 years after Christ.

Once again, it was never my intention to have you prove me anything. Nor is it my attention to prove to you anything. I’m offering another perspective and trying to gain insight into the scriptures and the Gospel. You share your beliefs with the Catholic church and I respect you for that. I hope a shared respect will lead to greater knowledge and understanding…

 

[joe370]

I apologize for asking you if you believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the same church that Jesus established 2000 years ago (and for assuming that you believed in the Trinity). I submitted another post before reading your response.

I said, Did Jesus lie when He said He would not leave His Church orphans? Anyway you look at it, if there isn’t a church in the world today that continues to be the Church established by Jesus, then Jesus lied! Which of course is absurd.

and you said, No, the Lord did not lie because he never made that statement. He said that he would not leave his Apostles. So there is a different way of looking at it…

What bible are you reading?

*“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” * John 14:16-18 K.J.V.

The New Living Translation says, “No, I will not abandon you as orphans—I will come to you.”

The New American Standard Bible says, “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.”

The New King James Version says, “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.”

So, you believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the true church, the only church that is God ordained out of the thousands of churches in the world today? If the apostolic church established by Jesus and promulgated by the apostles, at some point in history, fell by the wayside (rendering Matthew 16:14-19 null and void) --can you specify at what point in history this event took place?

Do you really believe that Jesus’ promise of perpetuity in Matthew 28:16-20, the last words ever spoken by Jesus to His 11 apostles, applied exclusively to the 11 apostles and their immediate disciples—ONLY?

Jesus prayed for unity, not only for the 1st century apostles and their followers, but for all Christians regardless of the century, until His second coming.

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17:20-23)

*"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshipped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth **Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” *Amen"

As a former Lutheran I came to realize that the C.C. is the only church that can trace its origin all the way back to the apostles (regardless of the wheat mixed in with the chaff, the wolves in sheep’s clothing, the sinners among the saints) --the only church that maintains the oneness and unity that the bible speaks of. There is no “division” or “dissension” within the C.C. regarding the deposit of faith–regarding faith and morals!

Considering the human inability always to see the truth clearly, differences of opinion were/are inevitable! That is why Jesus, after His ascension, sent the Holy Spirit to guide His church. People within the church did fail, will fail, but the Holy Spirit cannot fail! To say that the C.C. failed is tantamount to saying Jesus Christ failed.

Was salvation lost to Christians who continued to faithfully embrace the C.C. for hundreds of years until Joseph Smith started the L.D.S. church? Again, I respectably ask, when did the C.C. apostatize as a whole? (not individual apostasies predicted by Jesus) It seems to be a mystery to the entire world. History tells us about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, the decline and fall of Alexander the great—etc. etc. but History is silent about this reputed momentous event.

 

[joe370]

Dear Joe:

Hey willie…

**I agree with you completely Joe. As a non-Catholic I can’t point to an exact time of when the Apostasy took place and yes my beliefs are mainly centered in the personal testimony I’ve received.
**

If we have no idea when this reputed apostasy took place, why believe it; its all hearsay.

However, is it any different for Catholics? Can you say when, how, and by whom the Authority of the Lord was passed on. We know He had it and gave it to Peter and the Apostles,but when was it ever given to anyone else??? Your history summary was helpful in placing the Catholic church into close relative proximity of the church which the Lord established, but it in no way answers the essential questions of who, how, and when the Lords Authority was Passed (that historical event you mentioned). This is just a matter of your own beliefs and testimony which is not a bad thing, only different from my own.

Actually its not a matter of my own beliefs and testimony, it is a matter of the beliefs and testimony of the early church fathers, and saints of the C.C. They provide a direct link to the apostles. It’s quite a treasure trove of information that reveals a seamless continuity that is lost to most protestants.

In the end all we can do as Christians is what Jesus asks of us: “Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” Matthew 22:37 ---- and if people do that and find themselves, free of any lingering doubts in a church other than the C.C., then your home!!!

God bless willie…

 

[willi8]

Originally Posted by willi8 View Post

Can you give me facts that that scripture meant to indicate that the church would never suffer total apostasy?

I]"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock* I will build my church***; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Matthew 16

Are you saying that the fact that Satan, the anti-Christ (the ultimate enemy of Christ’s Body, which is the Church, “the pillar and foundation of truth,” --**“the church of the living God”) **–“shall not prevail” against Jesus’ Church built on Peter, the apostles and the prophets is not proof that the church would never suffer total apostasy?

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15

“Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” Ephesians 1:20-23

“Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone…” Ephesians 2:19-20

B]I agree with all of these scriptures, but I’m not sure why you referenced them…
You claim that the Catholic church safegaurded the Lord’s church. Says who??? Is that not an opinion/belief?

**Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “safegaurd the Lord’s church?” Is it the church Jesus built? Can your church trace its origin all the way back to the apostles? If not, I respectably ask, why are you a member?
**

This was my point exactly. These are different beliefs which we hold. No one can prove things either way. My belief is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints did not safegaurd the church, but rather is the Same Church which Jesus established. yes I can trace it back to the Apostles because I believe that the church was restored with all of its Authority and Power to Joseph Smith by laying on of hands from the resurrected Peter, James, and John. This is the testimony I’ve recieved through much prayer and fasting, and that is why I am a member.
Has the Lord ever said that His church would some day be called the Catholic Church and that HIs teachings would be preserved through it. No, that is a matter of your belief and faith.

Has the Lord ever said that His church would some day be called the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that His teachings would be preserved through it. L.D.S. was founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1830 --approximately 1800 years after Jesus established His Church.

Once again, this was the point I was trying to make. I was being asked to prove everything, yet I could ask the same from the other side…

In like manner, I have given you a portion of my belief and faith which correlates with my interpretation of the scripture. What kind of facts do you want?

**The key word is “my interpretation.” Should I believe your interpretation?; should you believe my interpretation? NO!!! We should believe the interpretation of the apostolic church? The key is to figure out which church today continues to BE the church established by Jesus Christ! **

I Agree

Jesus said to His apostolic church: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:20

Jesus said this to his Church or specifically to his Apostles???

Jesus’ apostolic church was given the Divine authority to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,” which means that church is the only church that has the right, the obligation to interpret Sacred Scripture. Do you really believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the church established by Jesus (GOD) circa 33 A.D.?

Again, Did he say this to the Church, or the Apostles???
Yes I do believe it is the same church. It was restored by the same Authority, Power, and ordinances.
.

Why would Jesus (GOD) start a church, guarantee --nothing would overcome His church, promise --to be with His church “forever” --and then leave His church and set up shop in a church established by a mere man like Joseph Smith? I promise, no sarcasm intended.

Why would God give the Law of Moses only to have it superceded by Christ? Why would Jesus come down, be crucified, resurrect and ascend only to have a second coming?

Yes Joseph was a Man. But I believe him to be a Prophet. Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. Joseph Smith did not establish the church. He was merely a tool used to help restore the Church the Lord established…

Did it shape Christianity? Of course, but was that shaping done by the authority of the Lord?

If it wasn’t done by the authority of the Lord then how could the C.C. shape Christianity?

Christianity doesn’t necessarily mean the Lords church. It was a movement which took on various forms after the death of the Apostles. It was a belief that Jesus was the Christ. Christianity includes Catholics, Arians, Gnostics, Protestants, etc, etc… Authority was not needed to shape these different beliefs.

I will always respect your beliefs but don’t try to discredit mine on basis of your own opinions…

I don’t think it was based on his opinion, I think it is based on a historical fact that your church (L.D.S.) was founded by a man, not the apostles which form the foundation of Jesus’ church

If your going by true Historical facts, then you can throw out divine intervention from both sides for Secular History will not deal with the supernatural. That is like saying that it is Historical fact that Jesus was never resurrected. Remember, the Lord established his church and restored it through the prophet Joseph.

Jesus solemnly swears that He shall be with His Church all days to the end of time, to the consummation of the world. But Jesus Christ cannot remain with the Church that teaches error, or falsehood, or corruption. If, therefore, the Catholic Church has fallen into error and corruption, as most Protestants seem to think, then Jesus Christ must have abandoned her. If so, He has broken His oath.
Where is this Oath???

. Could Jesus Christ command me to believe the Church if the Church could have led me astray, or could lead me into error? If the teaching of the Church be corrupt, could He, the God of truth, command me without any restriction or limitation to hear and believe the teachings of the Church which He has established?

Of course you are to always adhere to the teachings of Christ’s true church. The question lies in whether or not you are truly a member of that True church…

St. Paul, in his Epistle to Timothysays, “The Church is the ground”, that is, the strong foundation, “and the pillar of the truth.” Take the ground or foundation of this edifice away, and it crumbles down. So with regard to these pillars, upon which the roof rests, take them away and the roof will fall in. So St. Paul says, “The Church is the ground and the pillar of truth,” and the moment you take away the authority of the Church of God you induce all kinds of errors and blasphemous doctrines. Do we not see this today?

OLOR=“red”]Yes

In the sixteenth century Protestantism did away with the authority of the Church and constituted every man his own judge of the Bible, and what was the consequence? Religion upon religion, church upon church, sprang into existence, and has never stopped springing up new churches, to this day.

How can you be so sure that the Authority lies within your church?
Sorry for the quick answers. Much of what you discussed I just replied to in another post. Thanks for sharing your view.

 

[willi8]

willi8;3890389:

Dear Joe:

However, is it any different for Catholics? Can you say when, how, and by whom the Authority of the Lord was passed on. We know He had it and gave it to Peter and the Apostles,but when was it ever given to anyone else??? Your history summary was helpful in placing the Catholic church into close relative proximity of the church which the Lord established, but it in no way answers the essential questions of who, how, and when the Lords Authority was Passed (that historical event you mentioned). This is just a matter of your own beliefs and testimony which is not a bad thing, only different from my own.

Actually its not a matter of my own beliefs and testimony, it is a matter of the beliefs and testimony of the early church fathers, and saints of the C.C. They provide a direct link to the apostles. It’s quite a treasure trove of information that reveals a seamless continuity that is lost to most protestants.

Joe:

Can you tell me what that direct link is? Who was the next person to recieve that Authority after the Apostles? When and How was it done? These are serious questions. Sources would be quite useful to me…Thanks

 

[SCALCO]

Peter was not a Pope at all much less the first

In the books of men, the following titles are commonly used with reference to a man: “Pope,” “Holy Father,” “Vicar of Christ,” “Sovereign Pontiff.” All of these are titles that rightly belong only to the Lord Jesus Christ and to God the Father. There is not a single instance in the Scriptures where any of the above titles are applied to a man. The term, “Holy Father” is used only once in the entire Bible, and it is used by Jesus in addressing God the Father. (John 17:11)

Among the above titles is the bold assertion that the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ.” A “vicar” is “One serving as a substitute or agent; one authorized to perform the functions of another in higher office.” (Webster). When one searches the Bible from cover to cover, he finds only one passage which gives an indication of a vicar of Christ or God. It is 2 Thess. 2:3-4; it is worded as follows:

“Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God.”
… (Edited to conform with the Forum Rules)

By David J. Riggs

bible.ca/cath-peter=pope.htm

You currently have many misunderstandings or hold a distorted view of the Catholic Church. I don’t have time to address your post at the moment, but will try to come back to this later when I have more time.
In the meantime, maybe someone else can respond and I hope you take time to understand the correct Catholic perspective instead of these distortions.

 

[JRKH]

Thousands of GENERATIONS have lived and died b/w the time of Christ and now??? I don’t think that is a fact, but I understand what your getting at. I wasn’t saying that Christ’s church was unprotected by the Holy Spirit, my belief was that it wasn’t to be found on the earth.

Your statement was that we were not providing any “facts” re: the Gates of Hell Prevailing agianst God’s Church.
I provided the needed Facts. Jesus Promised to be with and protect His Church until the end of time. He did not say that He would protect the Apostles then depart until the mid-eighteen hundreds. Jesus has been with his Church through every Generation from that time until this. The Gates of Hell cannot prevail - At ANY Time - against a Church guarded by God’s promise of eternal protection.
The idea that God would have His Church, Founded on His Apostles, and Intended for the Salvation of all mankind, would be missing from the earth at any time from it’s founding until now is simply ludicrous. It simply makes Jesus a Liar, which He is not.

Does this leave those people who lived during those times without a means of salvation? No, the Lord has a way of getting the message to them.

Yes and it is called the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The single entity which can trace, in unbroken history and consistant teaching and theology from Jesus time down to today.

If this isn’t the case then what about the millions of people who lived before Christ, and even the millions of people who have never had the opportunity to recieve the message of Jesus the Christ even during and after his time? His message was only spread so far and millions lived and died with out hearing it…

It is a moot argument.
These questions remain, whether the church remained, as we believe, or was removed as you believe. God will deal with the unevangelized as He chooses. This is not for us to debate or concern ourselves with.

Your belief,as stated here, is that Christ, -
After Charging the Apostles with making dsciples of the Whole world,
After building a Church on Peter and the other Apostles,
After Giving them, and through them His Church, The power to bind and loose on earth,
After Promising to always be with them even until the end of Time,
After Promising the Holy Spirit to Lead them into All Truth;

After all of this, You believe that Jesus withdrew that church from the face of the earth for a period of some 1500-1700 years? Such beliefs fly in the face of all logic and the Promises, faithfully kept, of Our Dear Lord and Savior. Such beliefs make a mockery of His Sacrifice and the Sacrifices of all of the martyrs and saints throughout the ages.

I apologize if I sound harsh in the above, but I cannot deny the faith and salvation which Jesus has given by His sacrifice and has been faithfully and dilligently passed down through every age by His Holy Church.

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter was not a Pope at all much less the first

This is incorrect. The lineage of popes runs thus: Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement…down to…John Paul 1, John Paul II, Benedict XVI in our own day. You can find the complete list by doing a Google search. Can your so-called “New Testament church” trace its lineage all the way back to Christ Himself? Or did you all just start up more recently?

In the books of men, the following titles are commonly used with reference to a man: “Pope,” “Holy Father,” “Vicar of Christ,” “Sovereign Pontiff.” All of these are titles that rightly belong only to the Lord Jesus Christ and to God the Father…Among the above titles is the bold assertion that the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ.” A “vicar” is “One serving as a substitute or agent; one authorized to perform the functions of another in higher office.” (Webster).

I won’t waste time on the rest of your “cut and paste” since this is prohibited by forum rules, but I will point you to the Word of God where Jesus specifically names Peter as the one who will stand in His place after His departure from this earth.

In John 21 we read:

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

We know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage above, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be his vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Therefore, not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[JRKH]

joe370;3890533:

willi8;3890389:

Dear Joe:

However, is it any different for Catholics? Can you say when, how, and by whom the Authority of the Lord was passed on. We know He had it and gave it to Peter and the Apostles,but when was it ever given to anyone else??? Your history summary was helpful in placing the Catholic church into close relative proximity of the church which the Lord established, but it in no way answers the essential questions of who, how, and when the Lords Authority was Passed (that historical event you mentioned). This is just a matter of your own beliefs and testimony which is not a bad thing, only different from my own.

Actually its not a matter of my own beliefs and testimony, it is a matter of the beliefs and testimony of the early church fathers, and saints of the C.C. They provide a direct link to the apostles. It’s quite a treasure trove of information that reveals a seamless continuity that is lost to most protestants.

Joe:

Can you tell me what that direct link is? Who was the next person to recieve that Authority after the Apostles? When and How was it done? These are serious questions. Sources would be quite useful to me…Thanks

Willi8,
I am going to recommend a book here that you might find interesting. Partly because, in the back it has a sort of flowchart showing how some of the ECF’s and the Apostles overlapped in time thus providing the unbroken succession you are looking for. The name of the Book is “Four Witnesses” and it is written by a convert to Catholicism.

The Four Witnesses are Clement of Rome, Ignatious of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus of Lyons.
Ignatious of antioch was a contemporary of John the Apostle, as was Clement of Rome.
Clement of Rome was converted and ordained by Peter Himself, and became Bishop of Rome and Pope.
Polycarp of Smyrna was born while John the Apostle still lived and was a contemporary of Ignatious and Clement.
Justin Martyr was contemporary to Polycarp.
Irenaeus of Lyons was contemporary to, and outlived, Polycars and Justin martyr.
Clement of Alexandria was contemporary of Irenaeus
As was Tertulian who was followed by
Cyprian.
This line takes us directly from the Birth of Christ to the Year 260 AD.
This line is also in addtion to the line of bishops, particularly of Rome, which have been recorded and kept down through the ages.
There can be little doubt that WE as catholics can trace our line of authority.

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

I agree with you completely Joe. As a non-Catholic I can’t point to an exact time of when the Apostasy took place and yes my beliefs are mainly centered in the personal testimony I’ve received. However, is it any different for Catholics? Can you say when, how, and by whom the Authority of the Lord was passed on. We know He had it and gave it to Peter and the Apostles,but when was it ever given to anyone else??? Your history summary was helpful in placing the Catholic church into close relative proximity of the church which the Lord established, but it in no way answers the essential questions of who, how, and when the Lords Authority was Passed (that historical event you mentioned). This is just a matter of your own beliefs and testimony which is not a bad thing, only different from my own.

Yes, we know precisely when and how the authority of Peter was passed on. The writings of the Early Church Fathers (dating as early as AD 80 in this case) tell us very clearly how apostolic succession occurred.

Clement

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” [emphasis added] (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Hegesippus

“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History *4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (*Against Heresies *3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions 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 with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all 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” (ibid., 3:3:2).

“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (ibid., 3:3:4).

There are MANY more quotes from the Early Church Fathers, but I have quote just a few to avoid overwhelming you in the hope that you might actually read a smaller post.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[joe370]

Actually its not a matter of my own beliefs and testimony, it is a matter of the beliefs and testimony of the early church fathers, and saints of the C.C. They provide a direct link to the apostles. It’s quite a treasure trove of information that reveals a seamless continuity that is lost to most protestants.

Joe:

Can you tell me what that direct link is? Who was the next person to recieve that Authority after the Apostles? When and How was it done? These are serious questions. Sources would be quite useful to me…Thanks SURE!!!

How an you tell me what that direct link is? Who was the next person to recieve that Authority after the Apostles? When and How was it done?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually its not a matter of my own beliefs and testimony, it is a matter of the beliefs and testimony of the early church fathers, and saints of the C.C. They provide a direct link to the apostles. It’s quite a treasure trove of information that reveals a seamless continuity that is lost to most protestants.

Joe:

Can you tell me what that direct link is? Who was the next person to recieve that Authority after the Apostles? When and How was it done? These are serious questions. Sources would be quite useful to me…Thanks SURE!!!

How an you tell me what that direct link is? Who was the next person to recieve that Authority after the Apostles? When and How was it done?Iranaeus of Lyons

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (*Against Heresies *3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[joe370]

Dear Joe:

Hey willie…

**I agree with you completely Joe. As a non-Catholic I can’t point to an exact time of when the Apostasy took place and yes my beliefs are mainly centered in the personal testimony I’ve received.
**

If we have no idea when this reputed apostasy took place, why believe it; its all hearsay.

However, is it any different for Catholics? Can you say when, how, and by whom the Authority of the Lord was passed on. We know He had it and gave it to Peter and the Apostles,but when was it ever given to anyone else??? Your history summary was helpful in placing the Catholic church into close relative proximity of the church which the Lord established, but it in no way answers the essential questions of who, how, and when the Lords Authority was Passed (that historical event you mentioned). This is just a matter of your own beliefs and testimony which is not a bad thing, only different from my own.

Actually its not a matter of my own beliefs and testimony, it is a matter of the beliefs and testimony of the early church fathers, and saints of the C.C. They provide a direct link to the apostles. It’s quite a treasure trove of information that reveals a seamless continuity that is lost to most protestants.

In the end all we can do as Christians is what Jesus asks of us: “Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” Matthew 22:37 ---- and if people do that and find themselves, free of any lingering doubts in a church other than the C.C., then your home!!!

God bless willie…

 

[joe370]

**Joe:

Can you tell me what that direct link is? Who was the next person to recieve that Authority after the Apostles? When and How was it done? These are serious questions. Sources would be quite useful to me…Thanks**

Hey Willie…

You said,** *“my beliefs are mainly centered in the personal testimony I’ve received.” ***

Received from whom? This is a serious question as well; sources would be quite useful.

You said, **“Well, as a Member of the LDS church, I believe it to be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which did not continue but was restored to the earth after it fell away.”
**

Are the following excepts the reason you believe that only your church is the genuine article, all others --forgeries/man-made inventions?

Joseph Smith, Jr. was born on December 23, 1805, in Sharon, Vermont to Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith. After his birth, the family moved to western New York, where they continued farming just outside the border of the town of Palmyra. This region was an area of intense revivalism and religious diversity during the Second Great Awakening. Although Smith had limited involvement with organized religion during his youth, he studied the Bible, held religious opinions, and was influenced by the common folk religion of the area.[4]

Smith reported that, in 1820 at the age of 14, he experienced a theophany, an appearance of God to man, or a divine disclosure, most commonly referred to by Latter Day Saints as the First Vision. Smith recorded several accounts of the vision later in life. The version which is most well-known and read was published in 1838.

Smith was concerned as to the correct church to join, and went to a grove of trees to pray. There he had a vision where he saw God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, appear to him as two separate, glorious, resurrected beings . They told him that none of the churches established at the time were correct, and that he should join none of them.

Can you give me any reason for belonging to the LDS Church?

I can tell you what that “Direct link is.”

See links below…

Time line of the catholic church from the 1st century to now. Just scroll down and click on the century…

geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/6461/index.html

Was Peter the First Pope?..

cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a066.html

A Timeline of Catholic Church history
1-500 A.D. Excellent links…

davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_catholic_church.htm

geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/6461/

 

[willi8]

**Joe:

You said,** *“my beliefs are mainly centered in the personal testimony I’ve received.” *****

Received from whom? This is a serious question as well; sources would be quite useful.

My belief has come from prayer and fasting. The source then would be God.

You said, **“Well, as a Member of the LDS church, I believe it to be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which did not continue but was restored to the earth after it fell away.”
**

Are the following excepts the reason you believe that only your church is the genuine article, all others --forgeries/man-made inventions?

Joseph Smith, Jr. was born on December 23, 1805, in Sharon, Vermont to Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith. After his birth, the family moved to western New York, where they continued farming just outside the border of the town of Palmyra. This region was an area of intense revivalism and religious diversity during the Second Great Awakening. Although Smith had limited involvement with organized religion during his youth, he studied the Bible, held religious opinions, and was influenced by the common folk religion of the area.[4]

Smith reported that, in 1820 at the age of 14, he experienced a theophany, an appearance of God to man, or a divine disclosure, most commonly referred to by Latter Day Saints as the First Vision. Smith recorded several accounts of the vision later in life. The version which is most well-known and read was published in 1838.

Smith was concerned as to the correct church to join, and went to a grove of trees to pray. There he had a vision where he saw God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, appear to him as two separate, glorious, resurrected beings . They told him that none of the churches established at the time were correct, and that he should join none of them.

The reason I’m a member of this church is because I had prayed and fasted to know if the the above story really happened or not. The answer I recieved was that it was true.

Can you give me any reason for belonging to the LDS Church?

Well, I have recieved testimony that the Lord truly restored His church with all of its authority, power, and glory. I can only testify that the Lord guides this church by revealing his work to current Prophets and Apostles. This was reason enough for me, but I don’t expect you or anyone else to be a member of this church because of my testimony. If someone wants to know the veracity of these things or any other thing, it is that persons responsibility to ask the source of all truth…namely God.

I can tell you what that “Direct link is.”

See links below…

Time line of the catholic church from the 1st century to now. Just scroll down and click on the century…

geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/6461/index.html

Was Peter the First Pope?..

cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a066.html

A Timeline of Catholic Church history
1-500 A.D. Excellent links…

davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_catholic_church.htm

geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/6461/

I am truly greatful for these links. Its always nice to have all the dates and events in visual order. I still don’t think that thes time lines show a direct link from Peter having the keys to the Catholic Church. For the Catholic church to have the proper authority or Keys, they would have had to of been passed from Peter. Please don’t think that I am searching for some kind of Proof. The whole reason this search got started, was because other people on the forum were asking me to prove that the Catholic Church was not the same church the Lord established. To do this, I would have to prove that those keys and authority were never passed on. I admitted that I couldn’t do that nor do I care to try. My argument, however, was that no one could really prove that those Keys and authority were passed on, so both sides of the argument have to rely on faith. Now we are here and I appreciate the many points of view and direction the bloggers hae pointed me. I have learned alot… which is my main reason for being on this forum. I’m always open to new infor and Ideas…Thanks!!!

 

[joe370]

I am truly greatful for these links. Its always nice to have all the dates and events in visual order. I still don’t think that thes time lines show a direct link from Peter having the keys to the Catholic Church. For the Catholic church to have the proper authority or Keys, they would have had to of been passed from Peter. Please don’t think that I am searching for some kind of Proof. The whole reason this search got started, was because other people on the forum were asking me to prove that the Catholic Church was not the same church the Lord established. To do this, I would have to prove that those keys and authority were never passed on. I admitted that I couldn’t do that nor do I care to try. My argument, however, was that no one could really prove that those Keys and authority were passed on, so both sides of the argument have to rely on faith. Now we are here and I appreciate the many points of view and direction the bloggers hae pointed me. I have learned alot… which is my main reason for being on this forum. I’m always open to new infor and Ideas…Thanks!!!

Hey Willie 8, how’s it going? Hopefully good.

Maybe these links will shed some light on the issue of the keys.

davidmacd.com/catholic/pope.htm

The Unbroken Line of Popes
Tracing All The Way Back To St. Peter…

It is by far the longest continuous line of succession of any religious institution on earth.
By the time that the last book of the Bible (Revelation) was written, the Catholic Church was already on its fifth Pope.
St. Irenaeus listed the first 14 Popes in “Against Heresies”, 3:3:3, 180 AD

• St. Peter (32-67), Matthew 16:18
• St. Linus (67-76), 2Timothy 4:21
• St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
• St. Clement I (88-97), Philippians 4:3
• St. Evaristus (97-105)
• St. Alexander I (105-115)
• St. Sixtus I (115-125)
• St. Telesphorus (125-136)
• St. Hyginus (136-140)
• St. Pius I (140-155) * St. Anicetus (155-166)
• St. Soter (166-175)
• St. Eleutherius (175-189)
• St. Victor I (189-199)
• St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
• St. Callistus I (217-22)
• St. Urban I (222-30)
• St. Pontain (230-35)
• St. Anterus (235-36)
• St. Fabian (236-50)
• St. Cornelius (251-53)
• St. Lucius I (253-54)
• St. Stephen I (254-257)
• St. Sixtus II (257-258)
• St. Dionysius (260-268)
• St. Felix I (269-274)
• St. Eutychian (275-283)
• St. Caius (283-296)
• St. Marcellinus (296-304)
• St. Marcellus I (308-309)
• St. Eusebius (April-August 309 or 310)
• St. Miltiades (311-14)
• St. Sylvester I (314-35)
• St. Marcus (January-October 336)
• St. Julius I (337-52)
• Liberius (352-66)
• St. Damasus I (366-83)
• St. Siricius (384-99)
• St. Anastasius I (399-401)
• St. Innocent I (401-17)
• St. Zosimus (417-18)
• St. Boniface I (418-22)
• St. Celestine I (422-32)
• St. Sixtus III (432-40)
• St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
• St. Hilarius (461-68)
• St. Simplicius (468-83)
• St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
• St. Gelasius I (492-96)
• Anastasius II (496-98)
• St. Symmachus (498-514)
• St. Hormisdas (514-23)
• St. John I (523-26)
• St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
• Boniface II (530-32)
• John II (533-35)
• St. Agapetus I (535-36)
• St. Silverius (536-37)
• Vigilius (537-55)
• Pelagius I (556-61)
• John III (561-74)
• Benedict I (575-79)
• Pelagius II (579-90)
• St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
• Sabinian (604-606)
• Boniface III (February-November 607)
• St. Boniface IV (608-15)
• St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
• Boniface V (619-25)
• Honorius I (625-38)
• Severinus (May-August 640)
• John IV (640-42)
• Theodore I (642-49)
• St. Martin I (649-55)
• St. Eugene I (655-57)
• St. Vitalian (657-72)
• Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
• Donus (676-78)
• St. Agatho (678-81)
• St. Leo II (682-83)
• St. Benedict II (684-85)
• John V (685-86)
• Conon (686-87)
• St. Sergius I (687-701)
• John VI (701-05)
• John VII (705-07)
• Sisinnius (January-February 708)
• Constantine (708-15)
• St. Gregory II (715-31)
• St. Gregory III (731-41)
• St. Zachary (741-52)
• Stephen II (March 752)
• Stephen III (752-57)
• St. Paul I (757-67)
• Stephen IV (767-72)
• Adrian I (772-95)
• St. Leo III (795-816)
• Stephen V (816-17)
• St. Paschal I (817-24)
• Eugene II (824-27)
• Valentine (August-September 827)
• Gregory IV (827-44)
• Sergius II (844-47)
• St. Leo IV (847-55)
• Benedict III (855-58)
• St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
• Adrian II (867-72)
• John VIII (872-82)
• Marinus I (882-84)
• St. Adrian III (884-85)
• Stephen VI (885-91)
• Formosus (891-96)
• Boniface VI (April 896)
• Stephen VII (896-97)
• Romanus (August-November 897)
• Theodore II (November-December 897)
• John IX (898-900)
• Benedict IV (900-03)
• Leo V (July-December 903)
• Sergius III (904-11)
• Anastasius III (911-13)
• Lando (913-14)
• John X (914-28)
• Leo VI (May-December 928)
• Stephen VIII (929-31)
• John XI (931-35)
• Leo VII (936-39)
• Stephen IX (939-42)
• Marinus II (942-46)
• Agapetus II (946-55)
• John XII (955-63)
• Leo VIII (963-64)
• Benedict V (May-June 964)
• John XIII (965-72)
• Benedict VI (973-74)
• Benedict VII (974-83)
• John XIV (983-84)
• John XV (985-96)
• Gregory V (996-99)
• Sylvester II (999-1003)
• John XVII (June-December 1003)
• John XVIII (1003-09)
• Sergius IV (1009-12)
• Benedict VIII (1012-24)
• John XIX (1024-32)
• Benedict IX (1032-45)
• Sylvester III (January-March 1045)
• Benedict IX (April-May 1045)
• Gregory VI (1045-46)
• Clement II (1046-47)
• Benedict IX (1047-48)
• Damasus II (July-August 1048)
• St. Leo IX (1049-54)
• Victor II (1055-57)
• Stephen X (1057-58)
• Nicholas II (1058-61)
• Alexander II (1061-73)
• St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
• Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
• Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
• Paschal II (1099-1118)
• Gelasius II (1118-19)
• Callistus II (1119-24)
• Honorius II (1124-30)
• Innocent II (1130-43)
• Celestine II (1143-44)
• Lucius II (1144-45)
• Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
• Anastasius IV (1153-54)
• Adrian IV (1154-59)
• Alexander III (1159-81)
• Lucius III (1181-85)
• Urban III (1185-87)
• Gregory VIII (1187)
• Clement III (1187-91)
• Celestine III (1191-98)
• Innocent III (1198-1216)
• Honorius III (1216-27)
• Gregory IX (1227-41)
• Celestine IV (October-November 1241)
• Innocent IV (1243-54)
• Alexander IV (1254-61)
• Urban IV (1261-64)
• Clement IV (1265-68)
• Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
• Blessed Innocent V (January-June 1276)
• Adrian V (July-August 1276)
• John XXI (1276-77)
• Nicholas III (1277-80)
• Martin IV (1281-85)
• Honorius IV (1285-87)
• Nicholas IV (1288-92)
• St. Celestine V (July-December 1294)
• Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
• Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
• Clement V (1305-14)
• John XXII (1316-34)
• Benedict XII (1334-42)
• Clement VI (1342-52)
• Innocent VI (1352-62)
• Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
• Gregory XI (1370-78)
• Urban VI (1378-89)
• Boniface IX (1389-1404)
• Innocent VII (1406-06)
• Gregory XII (1406-15)
• Martin V (1417-31)
• Eugene IV (1431-47)
• Nicholas V (1447-55)
• Callistus III (1445-58)
• Pius II (1458-64)
• Paul II (1464-71)
• Sixtus IV (1471-84)
• Innocent VIII (1484-92)
• Alexander VI (1492-1503)
• Pius III (September-October 1503)
• Julius II (1503-13)
• Leo X (1513-21)
• Adrian VI (1522-23)
• Clement VII (1523-34)
• Paul III (1534-49)
• Julius III (1550-55)
• Marcellus II (April 1555)
• Paul IV (1555-59)
• Pius IV (1559-65)
• St. Pius V (1566-72)
• Gregory XIII (1572-85)
• Sixtus V (1585-90)
• Urban VII (September 1590)
• Gregory XIV (1590-91)
• Innocent IX (October-November 1591)
• Clement VIII (1592-1605)
• Leo XI (April 1605)
• Paul V (1605-21)
• Gregory XV (1621-23)
• Urban VIII (1623-44)
• Innocent X (1644-55)
• Alexander VII (1655-67)
• Clement IX (1667-69)
• Clement X (1670-76)
• Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
• Alexander VIII (1689-91)
• Innocent XII (1691-1700)
• Clement XI (1700-21)
• Innocent XIII (1721-24)
• Benedict XIII (1724-30)
• Clement XII (1730-40)
• Benedict XIV (1740-58)
• Clement XIII (1758-69)
• Clement XIV (1769-74)
• Pius VI (1775-99)
• Pius VII (1800-23)
• Leo XII (1823-29)
• Pius VIII (1829-30)
• Gregory XVI (1831-46)
• Bl. Pius IX (1846-78)
• Leo XIII (1878-1903)
• St. Pius X (1903-14)
• Benedict XV (1914-22)
• Pius XI (1922-39)
• Pius XII (1939-58)
• Bl. John XXIII (1958-63)
• Paul VI (1963-78)
• John Paul I (August-September 1978)
• John Paul II (1978-2005)
• Benedict XVI (2005-)

 

[willi8]

Iranaeus of Lyons

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (*Against Heresies *3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Hey Carson,

I didn’t mean to leave you hanging, there are just a lot of posts, and I honestly don’t have time to reply to them all. Your sources are helpful, but still don’t serve as a direct witness to Peter passing the Keys. All of the sources were from the “Early Fathers” which place them near or at the time of the Apostles. This still doesn’t confirm that those keys were passed on. Your one source states that Peter and Paul handed over the office to Linus. Do you know if there was a witness to testify of the event or to say how it was done? I’m not trying to be picky, but a source that just says that the event happened with out providing a first or second hand witness to the event is not reliable. I’m not saying that the source doesn’t have the witness, I just didn’t see anything about it in your post. Maybe you could provide more info on that source or just tell me where I could find it. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[willi8]

Hey Willie 8, how’s it going? Hopefully good.

Maybe these links will shed some light on the issue of the keys.

davidmacd.com/catholic/pope.htm

The Unbroken Line of Popes
Tracing All The Way Back To St. Peter…

It is by far the longest continuous line of succession of any religious institution on earth.
By the time that the last book of the Bible (Revelation) was written, the Catholic Church was already on its fifth Pope.
St. Irenaeus listed the first 14 Popes in “Against Heresies”, 3:3:3, 180 AD

Thanks again for another good link. Let me ask my main question another way so that I better understand Catholic Succession.

How are the keys of the kingdom or Authority passed from one Pope to another? Is it by an ordination, laying on of hands, ceremony, all of the above, or is it some other way?

 

[mercygate]

I am truly greatful for these links. Its always nice to have all the dates and events in visual order. I still don’t think that thes time lines show a direct link from Peter having the keys to the Catholic Church. For the Catholic church to have the proper authority or Keys, they would have had to of been passed from Peter. Please don’t think that I am searching for some kind of Proof. The whole reason this search got started, was because other people on the forum were asking me to prove that the Catholic Church was not the same church the Lord established. To do this, I would have to prove that those keys and authority were never passed on. I admitted that I couldn’t do that nor do I care to try. My argument, however, was that no one could really prove that those Keys and authority were passed on, so both sides of the argument have to rely on faith. Now we are here and I appreciate the many points of view and direction the bloggers hae pointed me. I have learned alot… which is my main reason for being on this forum. I’m always open to new infor and Ideas…Thanks!!!

I thnk one of the reasons non-Catholics have trouble with Catholic ecclesiology is that because the Reformation broke with the historic Church and severed the hand-to-hand and mouth-to-mouth connection between themselves and the first Christians, they had to develop an ecclesiology and a sacramental (or NON-sacramental) theology that attempts to be “church” WITHOUT the visible body, traceable back to the Apostles.

Therefore, we have this idea that the “true” church is an invisible fellowship of all “true believers” without any way of figuring out who they are.

Catholics (and the Orthodox, who also preserved their historic Apostolic Succession) share a theology of the Church that is incarnational. Just as Jesus had a physical body when he walked among us as a man on earth, so His Church must have a visible body until He comes again. Through that visible body, the power of the Keys is effective.

So Catholic ecclesiology understands that the power of the Keys not only IS passed down through those who have succeeded the Apostles, but MUST be passed down in order to accomplish the Great Commission.

Certainly the power of forgiving sins (one of the powers of the Keys) MUST continue until the Last Day, since the forgiveness of sins is at the core of the Gospel message.