How can the Catholic church claim an unbroken line of popes

[paul_barlow]

tkdnick:

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?

sorry about the spelling.
correct and also this shows that the church at that time was more political than faith based. the super powers used it to control the masses. look at the case of the knight templers they became rich and powerful. the french king was jealous of this and also being poor( it had something to do with us fighting them all the time). Arranged for the pope of the time to acuse them of heritical and satanic practices he gets there property and money they get tortured and burnt. lots of events like this. so how can there be a claim of him holding the priesthood if he did things like that.

 

[tkdnick]

paul barlow:

sorry about the spelling.
correct and also this shows that the church at that time was more political than faith based. the super powers used it to control the masses. look at the case of the knight templers they became rich and powerful. the french king was jealous of this and also being poor( it had something to do with us fighting them all the time). Arranged for the pope of the time to acuse them of heritical and satanic practices he gets there property and money they get tortured and burnt. lots of events like this. so how can there be a claim of him holding the priesthood if he did things like that.

Ok wait. I can only deal with 1 thing at a time. Do you want to discuss the succession of Popes, or some specific event involving the Knights Templar?

 

[paul_barlow]

tkdnick:

Ok wait. I can only deal with 1 thing at a time. Do you want to discuss the succession of Popes, or some specific event involving the Knights Templar?

no deal with the first thing first. the knight templers was an example of abuse of authority. not a question

 

[tkdnick]

paul barlow:

no deal with the first thing first. the knight templers was an example of abuse of authority. not a question

Got it. I must tell you that Church history is definitely my weakest area so it may take me some time, but I will go in search of an answer and/or someone who can answer.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What about the succession of the Popes? I mean, seriously. . .right now, this minute, there are at least three men in the world who claim that THEY are the REAL Pope. One of them is–Benedict the XVI. Not only that, right now there are many thousands at least of people who think that there is NO REAL POPE right now. Not only that, right now there are even more thousands and thousands who don’t believe that there is any such thing as a Pope.

So. . .just because there was a period in history where there was a fairly significant number of people following a Papal CLAIMANT, and another large number who followed a genuine Pope, just what are you saying?

Heck, back in the 1st century AD we had people claiming to be the Messiah. Do we reject Jesus because He was just one of a CROWD? At times, especially early on, He wasn’t even the front runner for “Messiah”. Now granted we don’t have much in the line of written records for the time, but it is entirely possible that in the late 30s the literati (Pharisee and Sadducee, for example, not to mention the Romans) who were even AWARE of Jesus were probably writing of Him as a maniac. Indeed, the Jews do not recognize Him as Messiah to this day. . .but if, as we believe, He IS, that fact that the entire Jewish population for the past 2000 years (with the exception of those like “Jews for Jesus”) once they got through the first generation Christian believers, has DENIED Jesus does not, and cannot, ACTUALLY MAKE HIM <<>> THE MESSIAH.

X number of people in the Middle Ages, or today reading their “text books” who claim that a legitimately recognized Pope is “not a Pope” cannot MAKE that Pope an “unPope”. Neither can they take an “antipope” and make him into a Pope based on specious reasoning, skeptical attitudes, or revisionism.

So–about the line of succession. It IS unbroken. Attempted parallel lines do not break an unbroken line, then. . .or now.

God bless.

 

[Joe_Monahan]

Stop!

I think people either didn’t read my earlier post or failed to understand it; the latter possibility strikes me as particularly unlikely, because I pride myself on writing clearly, if not always concisely. Re-read it and understand that I was entirely serious in what I posted there.

Let’s start with this comment:

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.

Paul,

Your opening post contained the full text of the Columbia Encyclopedia’s on-line entry on the Great Schism (absent any citation to identify it as such, I note), a notably unreadable piece, btw.

It was surrounded by two or three questions that might or might not have been discernable by a reader, depending on the extent to which his or her vision had already been compromised by the motley collection of names and dates masquerading as an encyclopedic entry.

I am closing this thread. I will reopen it later today. By that time, if you wish to pursue the question posed by its title, you should have appropriately formulated a readable statement of your premise and suitable questions to which others can respond. Alternatively, this melange that is now posing as a thread will be permanently locked.

My intent here is neither to stifle discussion nor to teach the fine art of debate. I do intend though that there be an effort made to post and respond in a tenor that is charitable and that threads represent a contribution to the knowledge of readers or cause them to think. The latter is only possible if the thread is intelligible to them. That quality is presently lacking here - in large measure because what passes for discussion is all over the lot - papal succession, papal infallibility, political involvement in papal elections, papal children, knights templar, and the list goes on. Decide what you want to ask and develop it further as a function of the responses received.

Joe

 

[Tmaque]

paul barlow:

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, I was using this example to illustrate that just because someone claims they are the real Pope(or prophet for that matter) doesn’t mean that there are suddenly two popes(or prophets). There is still only one real pope(or prophet), the other is false.

The FLDS are not like protestant churches. Protestant churches don’t go around claiming they have the real Pope. The FLDS claim they have the real prophet.

 

[Tmaque]

paul barlow:

sorry about the spelling.
correct and also this shows that the church at that time was more political than faith based. the super powers used it to control the masses. look at the case of the knight templers they became rich and powerful. the french king was jealous of this and also being poor( it had something to do with us fighting them all the time). Arranged for the pope of the time to acuse them of heritical and satanic practices he gets there property and money they get tortured and burnt. lots of events like this. so how can there be a claim of him holding the priesthood if he did things like that.

Paul,
A. We don’t believe that sinning causes one to lose their priesthood
B. We don’t believe that the whole church is lost because we may have an evil Pope

If you discovered that Gordon B. Hinckley had committed some horrible sin would you think the LDS Church was suddenly lost? That all authority was suddenly gone? Would you also believe then that every person he had ordained, married or baptized was suddenly without the benefit of those ordinances and authorities?

In your church, when it is discovered someone has been committing adultery or other grave sin, is it a requirement to go back and re-baptize, re-confirm, re-ordain, etc. all those people that this person had served while he was in the midst of his sin? Of course not. So, even in your church, sin does not automatically remove priesthood authority.

 

[jimmy]

paul barlow:

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.

No, you are quite wrong. Whether they called them anti-pope at the time does not matter. What matters is that there was a pope that was elected and there could be no further papal election until the death of that pope. Once the pope is elected, he has suppreme authority over the other bishops and they can not deselect him. It does not matter if they held a council and said he was not legitimate.

Even if there would have been, which there wasn’t, a problem at the time. The succession of bishops runs through all the bishops. If there was a problem with one election of a pope it does not affect the succession because the succession is not solely held by him.

 

[jimmy]

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.

No, it was never the political leaders that were responsible. They may have taken it as their authority at times in history, but it has always been the responsibility of the bishops to choose who it would be. If the bishops elect a pope, the political leaders could do nothing, he is pope.

 

[paul_barlow]

jimmy:

No, it was never the political leaders that were responsible. They may have taken it as their authority at times in history, but it has always been the responsibility of the bishops to choose who it would be. If the bishops elect a pope, the political leaders could do nothing, he is pope.

no you are wrong here the holy roman emperor was totally responsable for which pope was selected. please have a look at some web sites on medeivel history from a non religious view point. lots of them about.
How can a Priest who has regected Gods teachings still hold the priesthood. Thats saying Judas was still a priesthood holder when he hung himself. Sorry that just does not make sence. When the spirit of christ leaves a person so does the priesthood. How can you act in the name of christ but not belive in him. Thats like the Church of england vicar denying the virgin birth and the resurrection.

 

[jimmy]

paul barlow:

no you are wrong here the holy roman emperor was totally responsable for which pope was selected. please have a look at some web sites on medeivel history from a non religious view point. lots of them about.

Excuse me, but you are wrong. You have little knowledge of the succession. The succession is up to the bishops. It is their choice who succeeds the current, and that is how it has always been. The only reason why the roman empire had any authority was because the bishops allowed it. It is not because the authority was inherent in the roman empire. The authority was inherent in the bishops.

The problem is that you are looking at sites that are non-religious that have no idea on the teaching of the Church now or 500 years ago.

How can a Priest who has regected Gods teachings still hold the priesthood. Thats saying Judas was still a priesthood holder when he hung himself. Sorry that just does not make sence. When the spirit of christ leaves a person so does the priesthood. How can you act in the name of christ but not belive in him. Thats like the Church of england vicar denying the virgin birth and the resurrection.

First of all, Judas was dead before the ressurection. He was never a preist even though he was an apostle. Second, a preist once a preist is a preist for life. It is not in his individual faith that he is a preist. He is a preist by the faith of the Church with the authority of the Church in the special preisthood of Christ. His being preist has nothing to do with whether he has the greatest faith. It hinges on the faith of the Church, which is constant through the ages.

The point of a preist is for the consecration of The Eucharist and preaching. When he consecrates the Eucharist, it is Christ acting through him, not the other way around.

“Look not upon my sins, but on the faith of your church.”

 

[paul_barlow]

jimmy:

Excuse me, but you are wrong. You have little knowledge of the succession. The succession is up to the bishops. It is their choice who succeeds the current, and that is how it has always been. The only reason why the roman empire had any authority was because the bishops allowed it. It is not because the authority was inherent in the roman empire. The authority was inherent in the bishops.

The problem is that you are looking at sites that are non-religious that have no idea on the teaching of the Church now or 500 years ago.

First of all, Judas was dead before the ressurection. He was never a preist even though he was an apostle. Second, a preist once a preist is a preist for life. It is not in his individual faith that he is a preist. He is a preist by the faith of the Church with the authority of the Church in the special preisthood of Christ. His being preist has nothing to do with whether he has the greatest faith. It hinges on the faith of the Church, which is constant through the ages.

The point of a preist is for the consecration of The Eucharist and preaching. When he consecrates the Eucharist, it is Christ acting through him, not the other way around.

“Look not upon my sins, but on the faith of your church.”

judas had to have had the priesthood. if judas had not the priesthood neither did peter. show me in scripture were an evil man can be a priest(we are not talking about a name but a calling to serve god. evil can not teach good) would christ act through a filthy vessal i think not. and finally try being a bishop 500 years ago and telling your king to keep out of the church. one of my great ggggg ect. uncles named edward barlow tried that to charles the first. they hung drew and quatered him. now called st ambrose. also rembemer that most bishops were the younger children of the nobles and try telling me there was no political power.

 

[jimmy]

paul barlow:

judas had to have had the priesthood. if judas had not the priesthood neither did peter. show me in scripture were an evil man can be a priest(we are not talking about a name but a calling to serve god. evil can not teach good) would christ act through a filthy vessal i think not. and finally try being a bishop 500 years ago and telling your king to keep out of the church. one of my great ggggg ect. uncles named edward barlow tried that to charles the first. they hung drew and quatered him. now called st ambrose. also rembemer that most bishops were the younger children of the nobles and try telling me there was no political power.

To say there was no political power and to say the authority to choose the successor are two different things. The political powers could easily overpower the ecclesiastical authorities if they wanted. That is the only reason why they ever had an authority, because they forced it, and they were allowed it. It still stands that the bishops had the inherent authority to select the pope. If they select a pope without the political leaders, tough luck, the politcal leaders could not change it.

An evil man can be a preist. God can use any man for His purpose. Show me in scripture where Christ can’t act through an evil vessel. It is not a persons sins and their personal character that allows them to be preists. It is the faith of the Church. The Church ordains them as preists and they become preists of Christ for life. They are actually changed. Once a preist always a preist. Your sins do not affect whether you’re a preist, even though it is a grave sin to say mass in mortal sin. And they don’t affect whether the Eucharist is consecrated.

You say Christ can’t work through an evil vessel? Are you saying it is impossible for a person to repent through tragedy? If you are saying this, then you are gravely mistaken. A person could easily be converted through an encounter with an evil person.

 

[majick275]

So are you saying that everyone ordained, baptized, etc. by oliver cowdery, sidney rigdon, david whitmer, john d lee, etc. didn’t receive valid ordinances?

 

[majick275]

Brigham young was ordained an apostle by Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris and David Whitmer. If your theory is correct then the LDS church lost it’s priesthood authority when BY took over leadership by virtue of being the pres. of the quorum of twelve apostles. (since he was ordained by men who apostatized)

 

[tkdnick]

paul barlow:

would christ act through a filthy vessal i think not.

He has nothing but filthy vessels to act through. We are all filthy in our sin, yet He works through us the same.

 

[ben_dy]

paul barlow:

judas had to have had the priesthood. if judas had not the priesthood neither did peter.

What makes you think that? What event do you believe brought about a sacrificial Christian priesthood?
paul barlow:

show me in scripture were an evil man can be a priest(we are not talking about a name but a calling to serve god. evil can not teach good) would christ act through a filthy vessal i think not.

None of us are worthy, yet some are called through grace. We should pray that all called by God should become worthy - “Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power: That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
paul barlow:

and finally try being a bishop 500 years ago and telling your king to keep out of the church. one of my great ggggg ect. uncles named edward barlow tried that to charles the first. they hung drew and quatered him. now called st ambrose. also rembemer that most bishops were the younger children of the nobles and try telling me there was no political power.

I’m happy for you that you had a relative who was of such great faith to be martyred for his refusal to deny that he was, indeed, a priest of the Catholic Church. I pray that, facing death, I would have such faith! But I’m uncertain as to what the persecution of Catholics in the UK has to do with anything: I believe that by 1924 or 1929 all rights were restored to Catholics actually living on the great isle, weren’t they?

One thought - a somewhat personal question and I will understand if you choose not to answer, for I admit that I ask out of a somewhat morbid curiosity: have you had your 6-7th generation uncle “sealed” in baptism in an LDS temple?

 

[tkdnick]

tkdnick:

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,
Here is what I have so far (from a friend):

Basically talking about the late middle ages when there were multiple popes and the papacy moved to Avignon, France (mid to late 1300s). First, we can’t deny that there were politics involved. The pope wielded political as well as religious power. Most of northern Italy was a papal kingdom. The long and the short of it is that one of the popes (and I’d have to go look it up) got captured by the French (Burgundians?) and was forced to evacuate Rome and move to Avignon in southern France. The Holy See was in exile for I believe 75 years or so. Meanwhile, a group of cardinals stayed in Rome and elected their own pope. Each pope mutually pronounced anathema and excommunication on the other. The crisis was eventually settled and the Holy See moved back to Rome. The secular power of the Papal Kingdom did not end at this point - not by a long shot. Julius II (of Michelangelo fame) was a warrior pope and led armies into battle. The Swiss Guards were created because they sucessfully protected the Holy Father and got him safely out of the Vatican when an invading German Army came. Eventually, the secular power of the papacy became less and less during the 17th and 18th centuries.

Bottom line, we have to acknowledge the politics and that there were times when there were multiple people claiming to be pope. However, the Holy Spirit guides the Church and it is He who settled the question of who was the “real” sucessor of Peter. And secular historians generally agree on the succession of popes - who was real and who was false.

Does that help?

 

[tkdnick]

paul barlow:

one of my great ggggg ect. uncles named edward barlow tried that to charles the first. they hung drew and quatered him. now called st ambrose.

NO WAY! You’re related to St. Ambrose??? Very cool!