L
larkin31
Guest
see my post above
to me, the problem is all about pompous self-righteousness. One who calls other believers wrong has to expect to be corrected when he is wrong as well.
I don't get it...if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren't you a Catholic Christian?
- Status
to me, the problem is all about pompous self-righteousness. One who calls other believers wrong has to expect to be corrected when he is wrong as well.
R
Roy5
Guest
Jimmy B Catholic oldest church?
**I Fortuna **
Code:
It's true that Protestants and Catholics differ on many points. Protestants differ among themselves but most mainline denominations have a very amicable relationship. For example, they belong together in the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches. You don't have to agree in order to feel a sense of kinship. Personally, I feel a kinship with most Christians, though I do have trouble with a couple groups that diverge so radically from mainstream Christianity. I won't mention them as I have been admonished before for blasting one of them.
Now, as to the assertion that Catholicism was the first 'denomination' and such. Scholars debate that. Certainly the Eastern Orthodox would take issue. But many scholars believe that the Christianity of Jesus soon was corrupted, that the mystery religions and Greek and Roman religion had enormous influence upon the early Church. Some would say, for example, that the Papacy developed out of the office of the Emperor who had been revered as a 'vicar of God' as it were, that veneration of Mary was impacted by other Virgini goddesses of that era, that images certainly would never have come from Judaism so they came from various pagan sources, etc. We could go on and on. Many of the saints - some would argue - were local pagan deities who were 'baptized' by the church.
Now, various Protestants would suggest that Protestantism should not be seen so much as a protest movement (yes, in part it was), but as a pro-testify movement. The word means testifying for - testifying for the essentials of Christianity which Luther, Calvin and other reformers (all Catholics, by the way) felt they were doing. In their eyes, the church had become corrupted. When Luther protested against what he viewed as the sale of indulgences by Tetzel (plus corruption he had seen in Rome), he objected and stated his reasons. Rather than take these objections to heart, the Pope excommunicated him (an Augustinian monk) and gave license to anyone to kill him. Luther was saved by a friendly prince who protected him. Along came the Council of Trent which initiated various reforms itself, but it was too late. The Reformation spread rapidly.
Protestants would add that some dogmas came late, sometimes even after the Reformation. Take papal infallibility - 1870. Immaculate Conception - 1854. Assumption of Mary - 1950. Catholics reply, of course, that these had been basic doctrines all along, but were only defined on those dates.
My point is that Christians should spend more time dialoguing in a friendly fashion, rather than seem so bitter as is so evident here on CAF. It appears that many Catholics posters have a deeply-rooted hostility toward Protestantism. This strfikes me as inconsistent with the teachings of Christ, who lifted up the Good Samaritan (certainly a heretic in his time), ate with publicans and sinners and courageously challenged the religious establishment of his day..
Code:
Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not Protestants and would not want to be classified as such. The Assemblies of God denomination, however, is a Pentecostal Protestant denomination that has grown by leaps and bounds, especially in the Latino world. At one point it was opening four new churches a day in Brazil. I don't know if that's still true today. There are an estimated 450,000,000 pentecostalists in the world, in Latin America and Africa in particular, not counting an estimated 120,000,000 charismatic Catholics who in important ways parallel pentecostalism.
God bless all faithful Christians, whatever their doctrines. Christ clearly summarized the heart of his message as loving God and one another. All this theological mishmash is secondary and confusing. The Bible can be interpreted in different ways. I hope I'm not playing with words when I suggest that if God had intended us to know the one correct interpretation he would have made things clearer. How can people with alert and curious brains set aside those brains and depend upon any church or preacher for their interpretation? Some manage to do that, but I find myself in some rebellion and crave freedom of inquiry and freedom of thought. Does that make a person a poor Catholic? I don't think so.
L
larkin31
Guest
this is a wise, ecumenical post
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Wow, Roy5, there are a lot of Protestant talking-points here. I’ll do my best to respond to your comments here. Your comments are listed in the color blue, mine are in black.
- It’s true that Protestants and Catholics differ on many points. Protestants differ among themselves but most mainline denominations have a very amicable relationship. For example, they belong together in the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches.
- The older the Protestant denomination the more “Catholic”, meaning, fewer disagreements with Catholicism. The Sacraments are a good example. My experience tells me that there exist more differences, for example, between the Lutheran Church and Calvary Chapel, then there are between Catholic and Lutheran.
- You don’t have to agree in order to feel a sense of kinship. Personally, I feel a kinship with most Christians, though I do have trouble with a couple groups that diverge so radically from mainstream Christianity. I won’t mention them as I have been admonished before for blasting one of them.
- I feel the same kinship, in the sense that, all those properly baptized as Christian are my Christian brothers and sisters in Christ. I obviously except all those “Catholic” beliefs that we share in common, which out number our differences.
- Now, as to the assertion that Catholicism was the first ‘denomination’ and such. Scholars debate that. Certainly the Eastern Orthodox would take issue.
- They, being the Orthodox Churches, who by the way are part of the Catholic Church, would be one of the only ones who might debate this fact and I would consider the source in those cases. It certainly wouldn’t be any Protestant denomination, considering they all find their roots in the early Protestant movement, in the 1500’s, where those denominations sprang up, some 1500 hundred years after Catholicism, or at least 1200 years after 325….
- But many scholars believe that the Christianity of Jesus soon was corrupted, that the mystery religions and Greek and Roman religion had enormous influence upon the early Church.
- If this were true (it’s not true) then how can you trust that the formation of the Bible, which is a Catholic book (created between 40-500 ad) and its contents, was not corrupted? This comment, if true invalidates Protestantism as well. You can’t have it both ways, where the Catholic Church got the Bible right, guided by God and was corrupted at the same time.
“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. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Was Jesus wrong? According to your logic here, He was.
- Some would say, for example, that the Papacy developed out of the office of the Emperor who had been revered as a ‘vicar of God’ as it were, that veneration of Mary was impacted by other Virgini goddesses of that era, that images certainly would never have come from Judaism so they came from various pagan sources, etc. We could go on and on. Many of the saints - some would argue - were local pagan deities who were ‘baptized’ by the church.
- Sources please…. Because this is all false and based on speculation. Please provide some credible facts that support these erroneous beliefs.
- Now, various Protestants would suggest that Protestantism should not be seen so much as a protest movement (yes, in part it was), but as a pro-testify movement.
- Regardless of how it may be viewed, or described, they are all (non-Catholic, Protestant Christians) protesting to one extent or another, by rejecting Catholic beliefs, which preceded their beliefs. They are all protesting by their actions in defiance of God and his Catholic Church. Sin is sin and they can’t all be right, rather, they are all wrong to a certain degree.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Response to Roy5 (in blue), continued from last post
- The word means testifying for - testifying for the essentials of Christianity which Luther, Calvin and other reformers (all Catholics, by the way) felt they were doing. In their eyes, the church had become corrupted. When Luther protested against what he viewed as the sale of indulgences by Tetzel (plus corruption he had seen in Rome), he objected and stated his reasons.
- All, false, common Protestant talking-points, too much to cover in this post.
- Rather than take these objections to heart, the Pope excommunicated him (an Augustinian monk).
- I’ve read the documents from the Council at Worms and it appears that Luther got himself excommunicated, over a problem that was mostly local to his Dioceses. Didn’t Luther eventually marry a former Catholic nun?.
- and gave license to anyone to kill him. Luther was saved by a friendly prince who protected him.
- Never heard this story, could be true, I guess. Can you provide a source please?
- Along came the Council of Trent which initiated various reforms itself, but it was too late. The Reformation spread rapidly.
- The reforms at Trent started long before Luther.
- Protestants would add that some dogmas came late, sometimes even after the Reformation. Take papal infallibility - 1870. Immaculate Conception - 1854. Assumption of Mary - 1950. Catholics reply, of course, that these had been basic doctrines all along, but were only defined on those dates.
- And those Catholics would be correct.
- My point is that Christians should spend more time dialoguing in a friendly fashion, rather than seem so bitter as is so evident here on CAF.
- I agree.
- It appears that many Catholics posters have a deeply-rooted hostility toward Protestantism. This strfikes me as inconsistent with the teachings of Christ, who lifted up the Good Samaritan (certainly a heretic in his time), ate with publicans and sinners and courageously challenged the religious establishment of his day…
- I don’t know about “many”. Sometimes a lively debate, especially, when reduced to writing, may appear this way but appearances can be wrong. However, I do agree that at times people do get a little worked up here, when defending their faith, me included. Don’t take things to heart. We are, for the most part, just having a lively debate. You are right, we should always try to be charitable but that is sometimes easier said than done.
- **I Fortuna **
- Sorry, but this one is way too rambling and convoluted for me to address, however I can tell you that I do disagree with most of it. And, it doesn’t help that you haven’t sourced any of it.
- God bless all faithful Christians, whatever their doctrines. Christ clearly summarized the heart of his message as loving God and one another.
- Amen!
- All this theological mishmash is secondary and confusing.
- A sin, is a sin, is a sin and you can’t change that. So I would have to disagree here.
- The Bible can be interpreted in different ways.
- If the Bible is interpreted in different ways then someone is right and someone is wrong, they cannot both be right, when it comes to any Christians truths, if they interpret those truths differently. This one doesn’t make any sense. Could you please clarify?
- I hope I’m not playing with words when I suggest that if God had intended us to know the one correct interpretation he would have made things clearer. How can people with alert and curious brains set aside those brains and depend upon any church or preacher for their interpretation? Some manage to do that, but I find myself in some rebellion and crave freedom of inquiry and freedom of thought. Does that make a person a poor Catholic? I don’t think so.
- Christianity is the religion of humility, sacrifice and surrender, not the religion of our own intellect, or God on our terms. We are all asked to surrender our will to God and his Church. That’s how it’s always been, and how it will always be. Read the Acts of the Apostles for starters and you’ll see what I’m saying here.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello** larkin31**,
I’m sorry but I would have to disagree. See my response to Roy5 in my last two posts (#781, #782) and tell me where I’m wrong.
L
larkin31
Guest
I’m not interested in your debate with him/her over the historical claims of the Catholic church. He was merely pointing out that there is scholarly and theological disagreement. You guys can duke that part out; I don’t care what church claims to be “first” or second or third for that matter.
M
mbw
Guest
Hi everybody,
(my first post)
Sorry all, I know this won’t sit well with alot of you, but I see the answer as simply a fall from grace, as perpetuated by tradition.
I did my home work. I made a concerted effort to really know many different belief stuctures and the ways in which these beliefs are practised; Episcopalean, Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Evangelical. I found that for me none of these denominations had the grace of authority. The Holy Spirit ulitimately led me to Brother Joseph, a Franciscan Friar alive with the fire of love for God and our Most Holy Mother. The Holy Spirit said “Come to ME” and that was it. I along with the Roman Centurian simply said to Christ that it was enough for him to say it was so. In faith I follow, His grace is sufficient for me…And the Church, yesterday, today, and tomorrow!
The individual reasons why anyone would jump off the arc are many and varied. Creation fell from grace millenia ago and individuals continue to do so. The fact that so many more choose to simply follow the jumper is more than sad and the result is now deeply rooted in tradition. I have faith that the Spirit will re-unite His Church. I pray for it everyday as I read through the Liturgy of the Hours.
God’s Will be done! Alleluia.
(my first post)
Sorry all, I know this won’t sit well with alot of you, but I see the answer as simply a fall from grace, as perpetuated by tradition.
I did my home work. I made a concerted effort to really know many different belief stuctures and the ways in which these beliefs are practised; Episcopalean, Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Evangelical. I found that for me none of these denominations had the grace of authority. The Holy Spirit ulitimately led me to Brother Joseph, a Franciscan Friar alive with the fire of love for God and our Most Holy Mother. The Holy Spirit said “Come to ME” and that was it. I along with the Roman Centurian simply said to Christ that it was enough for him to say it was so. In faith I follow, His grace is sufficient for me…And the Church, yesterday, today, and tomorrow!
The individual reasons why anyone would jump off the arc are many and varied. Creation fell from grace millenia ago and individuals continue to do so. The fact that so many more choose to simply follow the jumper is more than sad and the result is now deeply rooted in tradition. I have faith that the Spirit will re-unite His Church. I pray for it everyday as I read through the Liturgy of the Hours.
God’s Will be done! Alleluia.
R
Roy5
Guest
Jimmy B
I really don’t have time for this, and certainly don’t have time to look for documentation. Although I’m retired now I have a variety of more pressing projects.
But a few brief responses.
I really don’t have time for this, and certainly don’t have time to look for documentation. Although I’m retired now I have a variety of more pressing projects.
But a few brief responses.
- It’s true that several of the earliest churches of the Reformation - Lutheran and Anglican, for example - have more liturgy than most free churches (like Presbyterian and Congregational). This doesn’t prove anything, Many Protestants feel that Lutherans lit a flame for religious freedom and thereby started a good thing, but free church Protestants believe they went further in carrying that flame.
- I feel all Christians are my kinsfolk, whether baptized or not. I don’t believe that Baptism is some miraculous rite that gains us ‘points’, Most of us are baptized when we’re babies anyway. Moreover, I regard people of every creed, color and country as my kinsfolk My reading of Jesus is that he thought likewise.
Code:
3. The Orthodox churches are not part of the Roman Catholic Church. By the way, many (probably most) Protestant churches recite the Apostles Creed with 'catholic' in it. The word, of course, means universal. Well-informed Protestants will often say that they are 'catholics' in that sense.
4. Many Protestants would argue that at the time of the Reformation Christianity in the West had become so corrupted that its roots had been mostly ignored. It adopted too many pagan rites and beliefs. It focused on doctrines, on heaven and hell and purgatory, on church authority, and adding a variety of superstitions so that it was all but cut off from its roots. Reformation means re-forming.
By the way, you've pushing me into arguing the Protestant viewpoint. I am not lining up with any one side here, but simply arguing for the end of this silly confrontation going on almost 500 years now. It's time Christians let 'think and let think' - a favorite quote of mine borrowed from John Wesley.
5. The Bible has many, many problems. If I had to believe it literally to be a Christian I would have to abandon my faith. Traditional Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants both are guilty of accepting Biblical accounts that are historically false, scientifically weak and/or ethically outrageous. If time I would supply many illustrations of each. One illustration. Would God regret that he had made humankind (a mistake!), then decide to drown everybody except Noah and his family?
6. I can't take time to document the notion that the Pope essentially replaced the emperor in ancient Rome, when that empire fell apart. There are so many parallels. When I was in Rome and had an audience with the Pope (along with thousands) I was struck by the veneration that was directed toward him. People were shouting 'Viva le papa" (sp), the same chant that hailed the emperor 2000 years ago. I don't present this as an established fact, but some scholars have sought to document it.
7. Even some contemporary Catholic scholars have come to the conclusion that the Papacy mishandled Luther. Luther was targeting corruption and abuse of the sacrament of penance (buy your way or family members out of purgatory). Luther had no alternatives but to repent or take a courageous stand ("Here I stand; I can do no other.").
8. Yes, Luther married a nun, Katerina von Bora?. They had a family - was it six children? One legend is that he wrote "Away in a Manger" for his children. It probably isn't true, one of hundreds of pious legends that too often become accepted as facts over time. That's certainly true of many of the biographies of saints - how they levitated, bilocated, etc.
9. The story of Luther finding refuge in the castle of a prince is well-known. As I recall he translated the Bible into German while there. He wanted the scriptures in the language of the people. The language of worship, too, one of the changes initiated by the Reformation that Vatican II finally found acceptable.
10. The Counter-Reformation did at least these two things. It sought to correct some of the corruption and abuses which existed in the church. It also - in some respects - made rigid Catholicism more entrenched and deeply anti-Protestant.
11. Pentecostalism is likely the fastest growing branch of Christianity today, especially strong among Latinos, sub-Saharan Africans (particularly Nigerians) and in S. Korea where one local parish in Seoul claims 750,000 members, the largest local church of any flavor in the world! The Assemblies of God are the largest Pentecostal group. The charismatic movement entered Catholicism at a Duquesne University retreat - in 1967 was it? It has swindled around here, but I hear that it still flourishes in parts of Catholicism, especially among Hispanics.
12. Protestantism may have started in protest, but it was aimed at removing what it regarded as accummulated corruption and a return to the pure Christianity of Jesus. Humankind being what it is, the purity of the church is impossible to maintain fully - witness the sexual scandal that became public in recent years. Protestantism has its serious weaknesses, too, of course.
Again, all this is not to diminish Catholicism so much as to undergird the view that there are strong points to be made by all sides. Over time my opinion gradually has developed both a respect for and a skepticism of all faiths, plus the recognition that no church is the 'one true church'. I find this an insult to God in that it suggests that one church understands the essential mysteries of this vast universe. I don't believe any of us understand those. What a billion or more galaxies out there! We all are pilgrims together, and we should regard one another as fellow travelers (well, not in the old political sense, of course!) and respect the path others may choose to follow.
God bless the whole world - no exceptions, well, except for deliberate bigots and terrible terrorists.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello larkin31,
I can appreciate what your saying here but I was just letting you know that there existed a Catholic exegesis for all of Roy5’s concerns.
As well written as Roy5’s post may have appeared, he would never have a Catholic theologian agree with his comments.
I like Roy5, he seems like a seems to be a pretty good guy, he appears knowledgeable and he does put some good posts together. However, that doesn’t mean that his information is historically accurate, especially when none of it is sourced.
Obviously, if his sources have a bias slant that point towards Protestantism, then one will obviously get a Protestant response.
Other than the comment, where he wrote that the Catholic Church gave “license” to kill Martin Luther, I have seen all of his other Protestant talking-points, many times before.
Now, as far as the “historical claims” (your words) and who was the first Christian Church not being important, I would have to disagree. It is extremely important, because it goes to credibility and authority granted by Christ.
Authority is everything in Christianity!
I’m not going to get into Apostolic Succession and the laying of hands and passing down the Holy Spirit here, other than to say that there does exist an unbroken chain, all the way back to Christ, the founder of the His Catholic Church, here on earth.
Thank you for your post.
1
1beleevr
Guest
The point about an unbroken chain from the Apostles to today, is what most noncatholics have trouble believing! There really is no credible proof, other than oral tradition!
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
See **Roy5’**s reponse to me (linked above) … too long to post here…
Hello again Roy5,
This is another well written post and I appreciate the fact that you have numbered your comments, as it will make it easier for me to respond. I enjoy reading your posts. Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed response. I don’t I have the time at this moment to give you a “Catholic” response but I will try to address all of your comments later tonight.
God Bless You,
Jimmy
1
1beleevr
Guest
My favorite type of works(service)is the etc.,etc.,etc.,!
S
shondrea
Guest
I know I’m waaaay late, but may I share my two cents?
Why wouldn’t a Protestant be Catholic.
Well, like all Catholics and, truly, all Christians, I wish we could all be united and worship under the same lineage, as God does. Yet, I think God reaches people through other churches for good reasons. DO I wish my protestant friends here were Catholic? of course I do. But God has reached their hearts through Lutheranism, Methodism, Episoclapism, and I believe he has done so for a reason.
Many protestants will find the love of God in a protestant church and follow him to catholicism. Many more will not. I sometimes asked, why? If God wants us all united, and he leads some home to Rome, why not everyone?
I think it’s because they’re there for a reason. Maybe my Baptist friend will someday minister to a young troubled person and save their lives through Christ in the Baptist church. Maybe it is through a Lutheran church that another friend will help convert an atheist. Maybe it’s the words of a Methodist that will finally reach the ears of one on the verge of suicide.
I do wish we were all Catholic, but, God obviously loves ALL his children just as much, and works through them to help those closest away
Why wouldn’t a Protestant be Catholic.
Well, like all Catholics and, truly, all Christians, I wish we could all be united and worship under the same lineage, as God does. Yet, I think God reaches people through other churches for good reasons. DO I wish my protestant friends here were Catholic? of course I do. But God has reached their hearts through Lutheranism, Methodism, Episoclapism, and I believe he has done so for a reason.
Many protestants will find the love of God in a protestant church and follow him to catholicism. Many more will not. I sometimes asked, why? If God wants us all united, and he leads some home to Rome, why not everyone?
I think it’s because they’re there for a reason. Maybe my Baptist friend will someday minister to a young troubled person and save their lives through Christ in the Baptist church. Maybe it is through a Lutheran church that another friend will help convert an atheist. Maybe it’s the words of a Methodist that will finally reach the ears of one on the verge of suicide.
I do wish we were all Catholic, but, God obviously loves ALL his children just as much, and works through them to help those closest away
1
1beleevr
Guest
Good post! I look at it like this; if God had wanted me to be a catholic, I would be one! And you are right, someone might save someone’s life in a Baptist or nondenominational church, because you can meet Christ anywhere:thumbsup:
L
larkin31
Guest
S
shondrea
Guest
I agree too. I think it can often leave a sour taste in a protestant friend’s mouth when I tell them my honest beliefe about Catholicism, but I always impress upon them, that I don’t think it makes them any less of a wonderful Christian or child of God. If you do not believe, with full grace and a true heart, that the RCC is the church we believe it is, then you are obviously better suited to ministry in a different church, and God has made you to fulfill a role in that church
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
The List of Popes
See also POPE, PAPAL ELECTIONS, ELECTION OF THE POPE.
St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
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) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
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) Also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
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)
Continued on next post -
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
List of Popes
Continued from last post -
St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
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 (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (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) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
John VI (701-05)
John VII (705-07)
Sisinnius (708)
Constantine (708-15)
St. Gregory II (715-31)
St. Gregory III (731-41)
St. Zachary (741-52)
Stephen II (752) Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him
Stephen III (752-57)
St. Paul I (757-67)
Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
Adrian I (772-95)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen V (816-17)
St. Paschal I (817-24)
Continued from last post -
St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
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 (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (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) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
John VI (701-05)
John VII (705-07)
Sisinnius (708)
Constantine (708-15)
St. Gregory II (715-31)
St. Gregory III (731-41)
St. Zachary (741-52)
Stephen II (752) Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him
Stephen III (752-57)
St. Paul I (757-67)
Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
Adrian I (772-95)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen V (816-17)
St. Paschal I (817-24)
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
List of Popes
Continued from last post -
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855)
St. Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
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 (896)
Stephen VII (896-97)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-03)
Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
Sergius III (904-11)
Anastasius III (911-13)
Lando (913-14)
John X (914-28)
Leo VI (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 (964)
John XIII (965-72)
Benedict VI (973-74)
Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
John XIV (983-84)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1003-09)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Continued from last post -
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855)
St. Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
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 (896)
Stephen VII (896-97)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-03)
Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
Sergius III (904-11)
Anastasius III (911-13)
Lando (913-14)
John X (914-28)
Leo VI (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 (964)
John XIII (965-72)
Benedict VI (973-74)
Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
John XIV (983-84)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1003-09)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
- Status