I don't believe that there was ever an apostasy as the Mormons claim.

[Arandur]

Arandur, I think maybe this is where we’re both looking in different direction and wondering where each other is going. Wherever there’s a believing people, a church is established. But what is that church and what does it do for its members? It’s more than a fan club or a special interest group, right? What then?

I guess I still don’t know what you’re getting at. Jesus established a Church for the reasons I explained. He intended it to be One, united in Him. Any church that is not that Church is an imitation that is only good insofar as it helps people to grow closer to God, but ultimately, if it keeps people from Christ’s One Church, it leads them away from God.

 

[mfbukowski]

Mski, what’s the point of life on this earth if we all get second chances later? Why does God bother to have a church on earth at all if He intends to do all this much more perfect preaching in the “spirit world?”

You gotta get it here if you have the opportunity. It’s our answer to invinvible ignorance, sort of

 

[BartBurk]

I do not feel that the Mormons have enough truth in their claim of an apostasy. I would really like a Mormon to answer the following question: what did Jesus mean when he said… ** “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”** Matthew 16:18

Was Jesus lying? I don’ think so!

I think Matthew 28: 18-20 from the KJV is even more telling:

18: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20: 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.

It’s hard to claim an apostasy after Jesus says he’s going to be with the church even to the end of the world. He didn’t say, “I’ll be with you until you apostles die and then start it up again in 1800 years, even unto the end of the world.”

 

[truthsilence]

Where am I mixing concepts? On “covenant?” What do you think is the “New Covenant” if not Christ’s marriage Covenant with His Church? It doesn’t get more covenantal than Him taking the Church as Bride. He will not break that Covenant; He will not let the Church die out only to start over and try again. To do that is like letting His Bride die and going to find another. Do you see how sickening your concept of God’s relationship with man is?

I think this says it all. Thank you, Arandur.

Tami

 

[ChristIsLord]

the thing i can’t get my head around is how mormons can claim an apostasy of the christian faith by using such esoteric and benign things like “baptism for the dead” not being taught in christendom, when paul states it in the bible.

yet if you use their own criteria for an apostasy against them, it’s clear the current mormon church in SLC is apostate. the early mormon prophets taught polygamy as a commandment from god. yet now it is something that will get you excommunicated. can you imagine a teaching held as the highest earthly principle, something taught by all of your early prophets later becoming grounds for excommunication?

then there’s the teachings of brigham young and blacks for the priesthood, blood attonement taught by brigham young, etc… all of which are reviled, today the fundementalist lds church is much more in line with early mormonism then the current church in slc.

 

[truthsilence]

Arandur, I think maybe this is where we’re both looking in different direction and wondering where each other is going. Wherever there’s a believing people, a church is established. But what is that church and what does it do for its members? It’s more than a fan club or a special interest group, right? What then?

Its interesting you would mention “special interest group”. I think the LDS church feels just like a social club with focus on charitable acts. Which is not a bad thing, its very good. We must focus on caring for the needy, the window, the lonely and the lost. But the Mormon church service doesn’t seem like church to me at all, compared to what we have. Where else can you receive Jesus Christ, to become One with you, and not just as a symbol?

In the first few moments of mass we sing with the angels in heaven: "Glory to God in the Highest and peace to His people on earth! Lord, God, Heavenly King, almighty God and Father. We worship You, we give You thanks, we praise You for Your glory. Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, Lord God Lamb of God. You take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us. You are seated at the right hand of the Father, receive our prayer. For You alone are the Holy One. You alone are the Lord. You alone are the Most High Jesus Christ. With the Holy Spirit in the Glory of God the Father. Amen.

This is worship. This is Church. The Catholic church is Christ’s church on the earth and it has been since He established it. I craved this when I was Mormon and didn’t even know what I was missing. I can’t imagine leaving for symbols and testimonies of Joseph Smith and the restoration.

 

[Arandur]

You gotta get it here if you have the opportunity. It’s our answer to invinvible ignorance, sort of

What qualifies as having the necessary opportunity?

Assuming for the sake of argument that your church’s doctrines are true, would you agree that a deficiency in preaching or missionary work, with your message conveyed in a less than perfect manner, would constitute an impediment to my opportunity to receive the truth?

Is there anything perfect or superior about the teaching in the afterlife as compared to that here on earth?

It certainly doesn’t seem fair to me if we’re being damned based on poor arguments, teachings, or evidence, whether on earth or in the afterlife. So if your exception, your spirit world preaching, is designed to be “fair,” I would imagine everyone would need to get a second chance. Otherwise you’re penalizing those people who rejected imperfect teaching here on earth in favor of those who have the benefit of perfect teaching in the afterlife. And if everyone gets a second chance after death, when they can get the perfect teaching straight up, then what’s the purpose or importance of the earthly life and belonging to the church here on earth?

Those are some of the flaws I see in your concept. Please correct me or show how my argument is flawed; I’m having trouble seeing a counterargument to this.

 

[mfbukowski]

I think Matthew 28: 18-20 from the KJV is even more telling:

It’s hard to claim an apostasy after Jesus says he’s going to be with the church even to the end of the world. He didn’t say, “I’ll be with you until you apostles die and then start it up again in 1800 years, even unto the end of the world.”

Dang. This again? I’m tired of doing this over and over to arguments I have already responded to. Outa here

 

[mfbukowski]

I think this says it all. Thank you, Arandur.

Tami

So no other Christians but catholics are part of the body of christ with whom he is “one flesh”? That’s hard to believe. He’s missing the majority of his believers then, I think.

 

[mfbukowski]

Its interesting you would mention “special interest group”. I think the LDS church feels just like a social club with focus on charitable acts. Which is not a bad thing, its very good. We must focus on caring for the needy, the window, the lonely and the lost. But the Mormon church service doesn’t seem like church to me at all, compared to what we have. Where else can you receive Jesus Christ, to become One with you, and not just as a symbol?

In the first few moments of mass we sing with the angels in heaven: "Glory to God in the Highest and peace to His people on earth! Lord, God, Heavenly King, almighty God and Father. We worship You, we give You thanks, we praise You for Your glory. Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, Lord God Lamb of God. You take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us. You are seated at the right hand of the Father, receive our prayer. For You alone are the Holy One. You alone are the Lord. You alone are the Most High Jesus Christ. With the Holy Spirit in the Glory of God the Father. Amen.

This is worship. This is Church. The Catholic church is Christ’s church on the earth and it has been since He established it. I craved this when I was Mormon and didn’t even know what I was missing. I can’t imagine leaving for symbols and testimonies of Joseph Smith and the restoration.

Yes, i think they started the last supper that way too as I recall.

After you convert back let’s meet in the temple and discuss all that you miss from catholicism and I’ll show you more than you ever dreamed of.

 

[mfbukowski]

What qualifies as having the necessary opportunity?

Assuming for the sake of argument that your church’s doctrines are true, would you agree that a deficiency in preaching or missionary work, with your message conveyed in a less than perfect manner, would constitute an impediment to my opportunity to receive the truth?

Is there anything perfect or superior about the teaching in the afterlife as compared to that here on earth?

It certainly doesn’t seem fair to me if we’re being damned based on poor arguments, teachings, or evidence, whether on earth or in the afterlife. So if your exception, your spirit world preaching, is designed to be “fair,” I would imagine everyone would need to get a second chance. Otherwise you’re penalizing those people who rejected imperfect teaching here on earth in favor of those who have the benefit of perfect teaching in the afterlife. And if everyone gets a second chance after death, when they can get the perfect teaching straight up, then what’s the purpose or importance of the earthly life and belonging to the church here on earth?

Those are some of the flaws I see in your concept. Please correct me or show how my argument is flawed; I’m having trouble seeing a counterargument to this.

It’s between you and God. We are saved by grace but rewarded according to our works.

I am tired of arguing. I will answer in a bad parable of sorts.

A guy is strolling down a trail in the wilderness and sees a shiny rock. But it’s partially covered with mud, and he says “fools gold”-- I won’t get fooled by that" and walks away.

Another guy walks down the same path and sees the same rock. He says - “Is that fools gold?” He spits on the mud, and it is even shinier than he thought. He picks it up and hefts it in his hand, and thinks, “that’s pretty heavy - I wonder if maybe it’s real?” He takes it home and washes it up. He weighs it. He thinks it might be real! He takes it to an expert in such things who confirms it is a gigantic gold nugget worth thousands of dollars.

He is rewarded for his work.

 

[mfbukowski]

And if everyone gets a second chance after death, when they can get the perfect teaching straight up, then what’s the purpose or importance of the earthly life and belonging to the church here on earth?

It’s a test. But we will all go where we will be most comfortable. My personal opinion is that it weeds the elect out of the world. But the spirit takes us from where we are and leads us to where we should be. The rest is in God’s hands. He forgot to ask my opinion before he came up with the plan.

 

[mfbukowski]

What qualifies as having the necessary opportunity?

Assuming for the sake of argument that your church’s doctrines are true, would you agree that a deficiency in preaching or missionary work, with your message conveyed in a less than perfect manner, would constitute an impediment to my opportunity to receive the truth?

Is there anything perfect or superior about the teaching in the afterlife as compared to that here on earth?

It certainly doesn’t seem fair to me if we’re being damned based on poor arguments, teachings, or evidence, whether on earth or in the afterlife. So if your exception, your spirit world preaching, is designed to be “fair,” I would imagine everyone would need to get a second chance. Otherwise you’re penalizing those people who rejected imperfect teaching here on earth in favor of those who have the benefit of perfect teaching in the afterlife. And if everyone gets a second chance after death, when they can get the perfect teaching straight up, then what’s the purpose or importance of the earthly life and belonging to the church here on earth?

Those are some of the flaws I see in your concept. Please correct me or show how my argument is flawed; I’m having trouble seeing a counterargument to this.

And of course, Catholics have the same problem don’t they? I don’t want to be damned by your bad arguments either.

 

[mfbukowski]

Dang. This again? I’m tired of doing this over and over to arguments I have already responded to. Outa here

Not kidding this time. I’ll be on madb for awhile

 

[RebeccaJ]

So no other Christians but catholics are part of the body of christ with whom he is “one flesh”? That’s hard to believe. He’s missing the majority of his believers then, I think.

You didn’t quite get what Arundur explained. The Church is the Body of Christ. We become a member of this Body by our baptism. All those who have received a valid baptism are a member of the Body of Christ.

2003 statistics (International Bulletin of Missionary Research, January 2003. David B. Barrett & Todd M. Johnson.):

Christians (total): 1,955,229,000

Roman Catholics: 981,465,000
Orthodox: 218,350,000
Protestants : 404,020,000
Anglicans: 69,136,000
Other Christians; 282,258,000

If you look at catholic only, Roman and Orthodox, that 61% of Christianity, which is the majority of Christians. There are very few religions who consider themselves Christian, who do not have a valid baptism, so the percentage is going to be far higher.

These denominations do not have valid baptisms:

· Apostolic Church
· Bohemian Free Thinkers
· Christadelphians
· Christian Community
(Rudolf Steiner)
· Christian Scientists
· Church of Divine Science
· Jehovah’s Witnesses
· Mormons
· Church of the New Jerusalem
· Pentecostal churches
· Peoples Church of Chicago
· Quakers
· Unitarians

 

[rmcmullan]

I guess I still don’t know what you’re getting at. Jesus established a Church for the reasons I explained. He intended it to be One, united in Him. Any church that is not that Church is an imitation that is only good insofar as it helps people to grow closer to God, but ultimately, if it keeps people from Christ’s One Church, it leads them away from God.

I’m trying to figure out what role you see for “the church” to play and how you identify it. It seems you lean towards the Body of Christ interpretation. That’s an important aspect but when I read the New Testament and see the labours of the Apostles in correcting the early saints and administering the Christian ordinances I believe that the church has a leadership role too.

If all the church is is a group of people devoted to Christian teaching, I don’t think that’s enough. How to defend these teachings? We are commanded to celebrate the last supper and there are other ordinances that need to be carried out. There needs to be people assigned to duties.

No I have to take you to where it gets uncomfortable. The possibility of failure. Churches fail all the time on some level. What protection is there against it? Only the righteousness of its members and its leadership. You can read in the OT about the idols and the corruption of the priesthood. As a people, there were at times when they were very lost and only a faithful handful remained. Do you see God’s striving with his covenant people in Israel as something different than with the church of Christ?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m trying to figure out what role you see for “the church” to play and how you identify it.

**FOUR MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH

**If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822) Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2). Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.

The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8, CCC 823–829)
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23). But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10, CCC 830–856) Jesus’ Church is called catholic (“universal” in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of “all nations” (Matt. 28:19–20). For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28). Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, “the Catholic Church,” at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.

The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865)
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2). These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself.Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.

%between%

 

[RebeccaJ]

continued…

I believe that the church has a leadership role too.

We are commanded to celebrate the last supper and there are other ordinances that need to be carried out. There needs to be people assigned to duties.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH

Jesus chose the apostles to be the earthly leaders of the Church. He gave them his own authority to teach and to govern—not as dictators, but as loving pastors and fathers. That is why Catholics call their spiritual leaders “father.” In doing so we follow Paul’s example: “I became your father in Jesus Christ through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15).The apostles, fulfilling Jesus’ will, ordained bishops, priests, and deacons and thus handed on their apostolic ministry to them—the fullest degree of ordination to the bishops, lesser degrees to the priests and deacons.

The Pope and Bishops (CCC 880–883)
Jesus gave Peter special authority among the apostles (John 21:15–17) and signified this by changing his name from Simon to Peter, which means “rock” (John 1:42). He said Peter was to be the rock on which he would build his Church (Matt. 16:18). In Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, Simon’s new name was Kepha (which means a massive rock). Later this name was translated into Greek as Petros (John 1:42) and into English as Peter. Christ gave Peter alone the “keys of the kingdom” (Matt. 16:19) and promised that Peter’s decisions would be binding in heaven. He also gave similar power to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), but only Peter was given the keys, symbols of his authority to rule the Church on earth in Jesus’ absence.Christ, the Good Shepherd, called Peter to be the chief shepherd of his Church (John 21:15–17). He gave Peter the task of strengthening the other apostles in their faith, ensuring that they taught only what was true (Luke 22:31–32). Peter led the Church in proclaiming the gospel and making decisions (Acts 2:1– 41, 15:7–12). Early Christian writings tell us that Peter’s successors, the bishops of Rome (who from the earliest times have been called by the affectionate title of “pope,” which means “papa”), continued to exercise Peter’s ministry in the Church. The pope is the successor to Peter as bishop of Rome. The world’s other bishops are successors to the apostles in general.

What protection is there against it? Do you see God’s striving with his covenant people in Israel as something different than with the church of Christ?

Man’s ingenuity cannot account for this. The Church has remained one, holy, catholic, and apostolic—not through man’s effort, but because God preserves the Church he established (Matt. 16:18, 28:20). He guided the Israelites on their escape from Egypt by giving them a pillar of fire to light their way across the dark wilderness (Exod. 13:21). Today he guides us through his Catholic Church. The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus’ authority. In this age of countless competing religions, each clamoring for attention, one voice rises above the din: the Catholic Church, which the Bible calls “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, “He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth.

Pillar of Truth, Pillar of Fire

 

[rmcmullan]

The sale of indulgences was improper and was corrected. Note that the sale was not dogmatically approved. As for the Baptists’ objections, this is no argument. Just because some people take exception and have a different interpretation does not make them right.

Sorry Arandur, I couldn’t resist this one: roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/sin-and-its-indulgences/ It’s a restoration alright, a restoration of the Indulgence.

You really know nothing about Catholics if you think it’s about unquestioning acceptance of human authorities. What does your church say about following what your “prophets” have said, and what has been approved by the general assembly and so forth?

You’re just plain wrong there. I was raised Catholic for many years and attended RC schools. I don’t think you realise the consequences of your interpretation of the Peter/Rock scripture. You’re claiming your own infallability. The reason the Protestants split from you is because you just can’t be wrong and they believed you were. About a lot of stuff. You’re perfect or at least claim you are. Not the first time someone has made such a claim. If anything actually does go wrong in your church, you are unable to admit it because of the Peter/Rock thing. You’re unable to reform on your own. You’ve painted yourself into a corner with that one.

To the extent that we are all sinners and hypocrites, we in a sense blaspheme, but in the more extreme sense of blasphemy that I refer, only those who call God a faithless fool of an oathbreaker commit such a terrible blasphemy.

Why you flatterer! Are you trying to make me blush?!

And that is where Smithians differ from most other non-Catholics.

Okay, I got to stop you here at that Smithians thing. You and your ideological buddies do this all the time and I want to call you on it. If I am a Smithian then you are a Popian. You follow the Pope. Don’t howl and squeal that you follow the Savior–you look to Rome for your teachings on Jesus.
…

Where am I mixing concepts? On “covenant?” What do you think is the “New Covenant” if not Christ’s marriage Covenant with His Church? It doesn’t get more covenantal than Him taking the Church as Bride. He will not break that Covenant; He will not let the Church die out only to start over and try again. To do that is like letting His Bride die and going to find another. Do you see how sickening your concept of God’s relationship with man is?

What I see is how sickeneing your concept of free will is. Is God going to force us to keep his church together? If we choose not to follow him, will he force us? No.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

Sorry Arandur, I couldn’t resist this one: roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/sin-and-its-indulgences/ It’s a restoration alright, a restoration of the Indulgence.

You’re just plain wrong there. I was raised Catholic for many years and attended RC schools. I don’t think you realise the consequences of your interpretation of the Peter/Rock scripture. You’re claiming your own infallability. The reason the Protestants split from you is because you just can’t be wrong and they believed you were. About a lot of stuff. You’re perfect or at least claim you are. Not the first time someone has made such a claim. If anything actually does go wrong in your church, you are unable to admit it because of the Peter/Rock thing. You’re unable to reform on your own. You’ve painted yourself into a corner with that one.

Why you flatterer! Are you trying to make me blush?!

Okay, I got to stop you here at that Smithians thing. You and your ideological buddies do this all the time and I want to call you on it. If I am a Smithian then you are a Popian. You follow the Pope. Don’t howl and squeal that you follow the Savior–you look to Rome for your teachings on Jesus.
…

What I see is how sickeneing your concept of free will is. Is God going to force us to keep his church together? If we choose not to follow him, will he force us? No.

Here is a list of all 265 popes:

1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125)
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-22)
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
18. St. Pontain (230-35)
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
20. St. Fabian (236-50)
21. St. Cornelius (251-53)
22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296)
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34. St. Marcus (336)
35. St. Julius I (337-52)
36. Liberius (352-66)
37. St. Damasus I (366-83)
38. St. Siricius (384-99)
39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
42. St. Boniface I (418-22)
43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
50. Anastasius II (496-98)
51. St. Symmachus (498-514)
52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
53. St. John I (523-26)
54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
55. Boniface II (530-32)
56. John II (533-35)
57. St. Agapetus I (535-36)
58. St. Silverius (536-37)
59. Vigilius (537-55)
60. Pelagius I (556-61)
61. John III (561-74)
62. Benedict I (575-79)
63. Pelagius II (579-90)
64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65. Sabinian (604-606)
66. Boniface III (607)
67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
69. Boniface V (619-25)
70. Honorius I (625-38)
71. Severinus (640)
72. John IV (640-42)
73. Theodore I (642-49)
74. St. Martin I (649-55)
75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
78. Donus (676-78)
79. St. Agatho (678-81)
80. St. Leo II (682-83)
81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
82. John V (685-86)
83. Conon (686-87)
84. St. Sergius I (687-701)
85. John VI (701-05)
86. John VII (705-07)
87. Sisinnius (708)
88. Constantine (708-15)
89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
91. St. Zachary (741-52)
    Stephen II (752)-Stephen II was elected but died before he was consecrated pope, so he is not found on the Vatican’s official list or included in the count.
92. Stephen III (752-57)
93. St. Paul I (757-67)
94. Stephen IV (767-72)
95. Adrian I (772-95)
96. St. Leo III (795-816)
97. Stephen V (816-17)
98. St. Paschal I (817-24)
99. Eugene II (824-27)
100. Valentine (827)
101. Gregory IV (827-44)
102. Sergius II (844-47)
103. St. Leo IV (847-55)
104. Benedict III (855-58)
105. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
106. Adrian II (867-72)
107. John VIII (872-82)
108. Marinus I (882-84)
109. St. Adrian III (884-85)
110. Stephen VI (885-91)
111. Formosus (891-96)
112. Boniface VI (896)
113. Stephen VII (896-97)
114. Romanus (897)
115. Theodore II (897)
116. John IX (898-900)
117. Benedict IV (900-03)
118. Leo V (903)
119. Sergius III (904-11)
120. Anastasius III (911-13)
121. Lando (913-14)
122. John X (914-28)
123. Leo VI (928)
124. Stephen VIII (929-31)
125. John XI (931-35)
126. Leo VII (936-39)
127. Stephen IX (939-42)
128. Marinus II (942-46)
129. Agapetus II (946-55)
130. John XII (955-63)
131. Leo VIII (963-64)
132. Benedict V (964)
133. John XIII (965-72)
134. Benedict VI (973-74)