How can the Catholic church claim an unbroken line of popes

[Joe_Monahan]

I find it frustrating that I originally posted the following in this same forum, not very long ago, and find it necessary to repeat myself. Take heed, ladies and gentlemen:

• Questions are a better approach than assertions, unless the latter are framed in a non-confrontational and non-accusatory manner.
• Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are verboten.
• Dredging up embarrassing historical incidents in the history of either Church, unless it is for valid discussion of the effect these have on current Church policy or practice serves no useful purpose.
• Expecting members of a mainstream Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.
• Is the post civil and charitable?
• Does the post challenge those to whom it is directed or does it bash them?

This tenor of the opening post in this thread left much to be desired vis-a-vis the guidelines above. But, lest any take too much comfort in that observation, allow me to note that responses by Catholics that were framed in a tit-for-tat manner are equally offensive.

Paul’s questions were valid points for discussion, dialogue, even debate - but he obscured them in rhetoric and language which suggested that he had a preconcieved idea of the answers which he’d consider appropriate. Those responding who relied on the premise that “you can’t say that, because your people did the same thing” answered nothing. Rather, they reverted to a typical schoolyard scenario in what purports to be an adult forum.

Let’s begin again - these are the rules:

Paul will post his questions in a manner that conforms to the guidelines above and which suggests that he wants to learn what Catholics say about the points at issue. Those who wish to reply will do so in a manner that is factually accurate and in conformance to those same guidelines. Posts that fail to satisfy this standard will be deleted and may have reprecussions for their originators.

Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

• It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
• It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
• Bringing up historical controversies of a particular religion should be done cautiously
• It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
• It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
• It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
• Discussion of past events rarely serves a useful purpose and inevitably opens a thread to posts that violate forum rules and/or the bounds of civil discourse.
• Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

Paul Barlow, the floor is yours …

Joe

 

[tkdnick]

Joe Monahan:

Those responding who relied on the premise that “you can’t say that, because your people did the same thing” answered nothing. Rather, they reverted to a typical schoolyard scenario in what purports to be an adult forum.

Oops! That would be me.

Apologies…

 

[paul_barlow]

tkdnick:

No wait. You claim that we had multiple popes at 1 time so how can we claim an unbroken line. You had 2 prohpets at 1 time how do YOU claim an unbroken line? It’s the EXACT same type situation! Restoration has nothing to do with it. You’re talking about multiple people claiming leadership of a church at the same time. The LDS church had this happen too. So how do you claim you follow the true prophet?

i think if you look in our d & c The prophet joseph explained what was to happen. the authority of the twelve equals that of the first presidency. when the prophet died the twelve were in charge of the church until the next prophet could be sustained by the membership of our church and that was what happened. there were more than one claiment but never more than one prophet. so please anwer my question if you can. Its funny when your questioned on your church you have problems answering.

 

[paul_barlow]

jimmy:

There was one pope at the time. He was pope as soon as he was elected and he could not be deposed by anyone on earth. If there is someone that claims, or is even elected pope while he is alive, they are not pope and they do not recieve the authority. Whether there were three or three thousand men claiming to be pope it doesn’t matter, there was one man who was actually pope. If a few cardinals decided today to elect a pope, they would only be going into schism, they would not actually be electing a new pope because there is a pope that is alive and who holds the office. When the pope dies, the cardinals will have authority to elect a new pope to fill the see of Rome. Until, then the only pope that is possible is Benedict XVI.

By the way, it is not new that you claim this. This has been brought up before. There are men who are alive now who claim to be pope. There is a man in Kansas who calls himself Pope Michael who was elected by his parents and a couple friends. This man is no more a pope than I am. There is a man in Montana who calls himself Pope Pius XIII who was not elected by anyone with authority. This man is no more a pope than “pope” Michael is or I am. There is one pope, and he is in Rome. There can not be another until he dies, no matter what, even if a bunch of bishops decide to elect a new one.

good answer but the college of cardinals was not in charge of the selection of the pope at that time. it was because of this period that they took away the power from the holy roman emperor. the election of popes was a political think please read up on medieval history.

 

[tkdnick]

paul barlow:

good answer but the college of cardinals was not in charge of the selection of the pope at that time. it was because of this period that they took away the power from the holy roman emperor. the election of popes was a political think please read up on medieval history.

Ok, so what’s the question again?

 

[paul_barlow]

jimmy:

It was actually St. Catherine of Siena who convinced Gregory VII to resign. If he would not have resigned, he would have continued to be pope. The other two men, were never popes, they were what is called anti-popes as “pope” Michael and “pope” Pius XIII would be called today. Urban was pope before any others were elected. No man can declare the election invalid if the cardinals had gathered and elected a successor.

The Great Schism has nothing to do with this topic.

I don’t know about the borgia pope, but if he had a son and daughter, that means nothing. It does not affect papal infallability. Papal Infallability does not claim that the pope will never make a mistake. It simply claims that when the pope makes a statement, on a matter of faith and morals, and he is addressing it to the whole Church as something that must be held by all Catholics, he is preserved from error. This has only happened a few times in history. The borgia pope you mention would not fall under this.

again nice try but incorrect it was not until after the event that that the winning side declared the losers anti popes. they were recognized by diffrent countries as the true pope thats why there were a series of them not just one.

 

[paul_barlow]

Tmaque:

We have to “claim” no such thing. For your theory to be correct ALL priesthood authority was removed from the earth. That means that every bishop in the Catholic church lost their priesthood. What causes someone to lose their priesthood? Can sin cause this? How do you know that the man that ordained you hadn’t committed some grave sin that he hadn’t repented of? The fact is you can’t know. For all you know you’re not really a priesthood holder.

wrong you have to show an unbroken and worthy piesthood that were the popes or your church lost the authority to claim that you are the church that the saviour set up remember one break and all the authordox and protestant churches are right.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

I’m going to make the radical suggestion that posters not ask others to make their case for them. That is “read up on your medieval history” is not much of an argument. What if one has read up or reads up and STILL comes to the same conclusion? Rather, give us documentation of some historical fact and make the argument that it somehow supports your theory.

Scott

 

[paul_barlow]

Tmaque:

Warren Jeffs, the prophet of the restored LDS Church is under indictment for polygamy and related charges. He has disappeared and is hiding from authorities. He claims to be the real prophet and claims Gordon B. Hinkley is a false prophet. Using your logic, you now have more than one prophet. How can you claim that Gordon B. Hinckley is the direct successor of Joseph Smith and not Warren Jeffs?

we are talking about your church here not ours. oh you can not be serious as an ex member you know the answer to that. the other churches are apostate groups simular to the protestants are to yours. answer the question

 

[paul_barlow]

PaulDupre:

First, the doctrine of papal infallibility does not say that the pope cannot make a mistake. It also does not say that the pope is free from sin. What it says is that the Holy Spirit will not permit the pope to teach error in matters of faith and morals.

This is very similar to the LDS belief that the Lord will not allow the prophet to lead the Church astray. You LDS claim the same infallibility for your prophet as we claim for our pope.

Second, though the doctrine of papal infallibility was only universally pronounced by the Church 100 years ago, that only means that it only became necessary to declare it 100 years ago. Before that, no one ever questioned or opposed the doctrine, so there was no need to make an official proclamation about it.

You often have the same situation in your Church. It is only when there seems to be confusion or false teaching cropping up about something that the 1st Presidency feels the need to make an official pronouncement about it.

God bless,
Paul

good answer but it does not answer the questions in the original post. in fact it makes it worse if they were under the infallibility rule then that clearly says thoses popes could not have been leading his church. and what about luther and all the other reformers a part from burning them why was it announced then the popes authority has been questioned by many in your church they were usally killed. very spiritual. this not mean that your church is any worse than any other but for you to claim to be the true church you must answer the question

 

[tkdnick]

I went back and read post #1 and am still not exactly sure what your question is. Is it just “how do we know our pope has a direct lineage back to St. Peter?”

 

[paul_barlow]

Joe Monahan:

I find it frustrating that I originally posted the following in this same forum, not very long ago, and find it necessary to repeat myself. Take heed, ladies and gentlemen:

This tenor of the opening post in this thread left much to be desired vis-a-vis the guidelines above. But, lest any take too much comfort in that observation, allow me to note that responses by Catholics that were framed in a tit-for-tat manner are equally offensive.

Paul’s questions were valid points for discussion, dialogue, even debate - but he obscured them in rhetoric and language which suggested that he had a preconcieved idea of the answers which he’d consider appropriate. Those responding who relied on the premise that “you can’t say that, because your people did the same thing” answered nothing. Rather, they reverted to a typical schoolyard scenario in what purports to be an adult forum.

Let’s begin again - these are the rules:

Paul will post his questions in a manner that conforms to the guidelines above and which suggests that he wants to learn what Catholics say about the points at issue. Those who wish to reply will do so in a manner that is factually accurate and in conformance to those same guidelines. Posts that fail to satisfy this standard will be deleted and may have reprecussions for their originators.

Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

• It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
• It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
• Bringing up historical controversies of a particular religion should be done cautiously
• It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
• It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
• It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
• Discussion of past events rarely serves a useful purpose and inevitably opens a thread to posts that violate forum rules and/or the bounds of civil discourse.
• Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

Paul Barlow, the floor is yours …

Joe

sorry joe i was enjoying myself. i was attempting to show its impossable to answer questions that the questionere does not want answering. ie racism the wow baptism etc. your doing a great job making us behave like the people we claim to be. keep it up.

 

[majick275]

While I consider myself reasonably well read in medieval history, I think Dr. Hahn does a better job of commuicating what I believe on this subject. Please read this link and discuss.

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

 

[ComradeAndrei]

good answer but the college of cardinals was not in charge of the selection of the pope at that time. it was because of this period that they took away the power from the holy roman emperor. the election of popes was a political think please read up on medieval history.

The Holy Roman Emperor never had the power to elect a Pope. For a while, some Roman laymen and minor clergy participated in Papal elections until that got to messy and then they set up the Conclave but the Holy Roman Emperor could never elect a Pope. You might want to take your own advice.

again nice try but incorrect it was not until after the event that that the winning side declared the losers anti popes. they were recognized by diffrent countries as the true pope thats why there were a series of them not just one.

It doesn’t matter one bit if the whole world recognized someone as Pope, what matters is if the Pope is validly elected. Pope Urban VI and his successors were the valid popes, regardless of what some secular powers thought.

wrong you have to show an unbroken and worthy

What do you mean by “worthy”? None of us are “worthy”, however Jesus Christ Himself chose unworthy men for His apostles and built His Church on Peter-who denied him three times. Judas betrayed Him. Worthy has nothing to do with it. The old accusation that “some Popes were immoral, so therefore the Catholic Church is wrong” is pretty tired.

piesthood that were the popes or your church lost the authority to claim that you are the church that the saviour set up remember one break and all the authordox and protestant churches are right.

Really? ONE break and ALL the Orthodox, Protestant (and I assume LDS) Churches are right? They can’t all be right.

Besides, there never was a break, you have not shown any conclusive proof but only ignorance of history. Other posters have done a pretty good job of explaining why there has only been ONE true Pope at any one time. Now, you must either find conclusive proof that this is not true, and this will be pretty tough unless you are a master historian (and even they can’t do it) or read up more on history and Church doctrine and see the Truth.

 

[tkdnick]

majick275:

While I consider myself reasonably well read in medieval history, I think Dr. Hahn does a better job of commuicating what I believe on this subject. Please read this link and discuss.

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

That thing’s pretty long. Reading now…

 

[paul_barlow]

tkdnick:

Ok, so what’s the question again?

the college of cardinals took over the appointment from the holy roman emperor. there was lots of politics ect. and where politics are concethe rned there were more than one view. that is why there were two sets of popes one in rome one in france. so the winning side declared the losers anti popes. a bit like the north lording it over the south in the us cival war. so with all this politics etc how is it justafiable to claim the authority of peter. from an out side view it appears false. this should not be a reflection of your beliefs but it would result in you losing that authority. i think thise is what most of the protastant and orthodox churches teach.

 

[paul_barlow]

Scott Waddell:

I’m going to make the radical suggestion that posters not ask others to make their case for them. That is “read up on your medieval history” is not much of an argument. What if one has read up or reads up and STILL comes to the same conclusion? Rather, give us documentation of some historical fact and make the argument that it somehow supports your theory.

Scott

we should know our chuches history is my statement ignorance is not an option. there are extremly long tomes on european history. I know mine even the bits i am not keen on but we have to know what we teach. thats why i included the bit in my opening post. i delibtly posed this question to show that some questions are very difficult to answer and if the purpose as in a lot of posts is to attack anothers beliefs its best to refute them. but they will keep coming back at you with the same question. so feel free to answer if you want but try to remember how you feel when others attack your beliefs.

 

[tkdnick]

paul barlow:

the college of cardinals took over the appointment from the holy roman emperor. there was lots of politics ect. and where politics are concethe rned there were more than one view. that is why there were two sets of popes one in rome one in france. so the winning side declared the losers anti popes. a bit like the north lording it over the south in the us cival war. so with all this politics etc how is it justafiable to claim the authority of peter. from an out side view it appears false. this should not be a reflection of your beliefs but it would result in you losing that authority. i think thise is what most of the protastant and orthodox churches teach.

It was kinda hard to understand this with the spelling errors, but let me see if I got this:

You’re saying before the Schism the Roman Emporer selected the Pope and after the Schism a college of Cardinals elected the Pope. You’re wondering why the change. You’re also wondering how we know which Pope is the real Pope. Is this correct?

 

[paul_barlow]

majick275:

While I consider myself reasonably well read in medieval history, I think Dr. Hahn does a better job of commuicating what I believe on this subject. Please read this link and discuss.

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

intresting site i would recommend looking at it easier to read than some. i could not find info on the medieval popes though. i have no problem with peter being appointed the head of the church. the problems only start when the offical roman goverment took it up as a means of control.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

paul barlow:

we should know our chuches history

I assume you mean that one ought to know his church’s history. If that is the case I agree, but that does not mean one has to know every jot and tittle.

is my statement ignorance is not an option.

I don’t quite understand this sentence, save to venture that no one has in any way implied that ignorance is an option.

there are extremly long tomes on european history. I know mine even the bits i am not keen on but we have to know what we teach. thats why i included the bit in my opening post.

Ok.

i delibtly posed this question to show that some questions are very difficult to answer

I freely acknowledge that the belief in an unbroken line of popes does contain difficulties. But as they say, 10,000 difficulties do not add up to one doubt.

and if the purpose as in a lot of posts is to attack anothers beliefs its best to refute them.

Perhaps there has been another thread where there was an attack that I am unaware of. I’m just dealing with what we have here.

Perhaps but they will keep coming back at you with the same question. so feel free to answer if you want but try to remember how you feel when others attack your beliefs.

I’m not too worried about how I feel when my beliefs are attacked, only in what can reasonably be believed and to my satisfaction it is perfectly reasonable to believe that Christ built His Church on Peter and promised it would last until the end of time and that, even if certain medieval popes were chosen in curious circumstances, that God still lived up to His promise. It is impossible to show this belief is outrageous without special pleading (that is, forcing the Catholic to produce scientific evidence that these popes were legitimate while the papal poo-pooer gets to just throw out alternative speculations); or by appealing to the kind of skepticism that would destroy all faiths.

Scott