Pope List

  • Thread starter Thread starter fulloftruth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fulloftruth

Guest
Check out this list of Popes from Peter to John Paul II. Pretty convincing huh. I think that since no other church even claims to have Peter as thier earthly Rock, and Christ said he would use Peter as the Rock which he would start his eternal Church, then I think all of the Protestants should rethink there objections based on the reality of there options. There is only one.

popechart.com/Popelist.htm
 
40.png
fulloftruth:
Check out this list of Popes from Peter to John Paul II. Pretty convincing huh. I think that since no other church even claims to have Peter as thier earthly Rock, and Christ said he would use Peter as the Rock which he would start his eternal Church, then I think all of the Protestants should rethink there objections based on the reality of there options. There is only one.
Click to expand...
Problem is there’s no real historical proof that Peter ever served as Bishop of Rome. Especially for as many years as the chart specifies. And not even Augustine believed that Peter himself is the “Rock” in the Matthew passage, but instead Peter’s confession. He once believed it was Peter himself but then changed his mind.
 
I find that it bears more weight (if you must) by saying that the Bishop of Rome was and is the first Patriarch of the universal church.
In 381 AD the council of Constantinople declared that the Bishop of Constantinople shall have primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome.
 
The Pentarchy comprises of the 5 Holy See’s. All with Apostolic succession.

Rome (Italy) - Apostolic succession of St. Peter
Constantinople (Turkey) - Apostolic succession of St. Andrew
Alexandria (Egypt) - Apostolic succession of St. Mark
Antioch (Syria) Apostolic succession of St. Peter
Jerusalem (Israel) - Apostolic succession of St. James
 
40.png
Ozzie:
Problem is there’s no real historical proof that Peter ever served as Bishop of Rome. Especially for as many years as the chart specifies.
Click to expand...
The archealogical evidence on Vatican hill is pretty compelling, but you are right, there is not much in the way of hard and fast evidence from that period of time for anything.

Aside from scripture, there is no proof that Paul was anywhere he is supposed to have been during his lifetime either.

In those years the Christian (Catholic/Orthodox) Way was a very obscure group.
 
What’s with all the anti-pope’s on the list ‘Chronology of Christianity’, what the heck is an anti-pope when it’s out???
 
40.png
fulloftruth:
Check out this list of Popes from Peter to John Paul II. Pretty convincing huh. I think that since no other church even claims to have Peter as thier earthly Rock, …There is only one.

popechart.com/Popelist.htm
Click to expand...
There is only **THREE ! **😃

Check this article, from a Catholic source.

melkitecathedral.org/melkite/history3.htm

**Peter’s First See
**
**The evolution of the Patriarchate of Antioch
**
The article features a fascinating photograph of three bishops with the apostolic succession of Saint Peter, photographed all together in Damascus in 2001.

Three successors of Peter:

– Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I,
  • Pope John Paul II,
  • Greek Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius IV
  • gather in the Syriac Orthodox Cathedral of St. George in Damascus, May 2001. (photo: L’Osservatore Romano)
The oldest lineage of bishops which comes down to us in the 21st century who is a successor to St Peter is not actually the bishop (Pope) of the Church of Rome, but the bishop (Patriarch) of the Church of Antioch.

Peter founded the Church of Antioch in 34 AD, and he remained there for 5-7 years. Paul (and Barnabas) came to Antioch to see Peter there and it was in Antioch that the dispute between Peter and Paul flared up about whether converts had to be circumcised. In order to resolve this Peter and Paul took the dispute to James in Jerusalem and James called all the Apostles to a Council in Jerusalem to make a determination.

Early than this, Antioch had received a large number of Christian refugees who fled Jerusalem after the martyrdom of Saint Stephen the deacon, a period of martyrdom in Jerusalem which Paul himself had initiated while he was still the uncoverted Saul!

To succeed him in Antioch Saint Peter consecrated Euodius (Evodius) as bishop of that city. Euodius was succeeded as bishop in Antioch by the great Saint and holy martyr Ignatius who was himself consecrated by either Saint Peter or Saint Paul. The Patriarch of Antioch is the 170th successor of Saint Peter. Here is a complete list of his apostolic succession from the holy Apostle Peter
web.archive.org/web/20040209135915/http://www.antiochian.org/Patriarchate/patriarchs.htm
Tinyurl: tinyurl.com/6s6q2

So the Church of Antioch founded by Saint Peter is a little bit older than Rome, and like Rome it has an unbroken apostolic succession going back to Saint Peter.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
What’s with all the anti-pope’s on the list ‘Chronology of Christianity’, what the heck is an anti-pope when it’s out???
Click to expand...
An antipope is a false or illegitimate claimant of the Chair of Peter, a pretender and hence are not Popes at all. However, there is an antipope who later became a saint, St. Hippolytus for one. Listings of popes may sometimes mention the antipopes as well.

Gerry 🙂
 
40.png
RobedWithLight:
An antipope is a false or illegitimate claimant of the Chair of Peter, a pretender and hence are not Popes at all. However, there is an antipope who later became a saint, St. Hippolytus for one. Listings of popes may sometimes mention the antipopes as well.

Gerry 🙂
Click to expand...

The list in the 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia lists 37 or 39. Now there are at least two more, IIRC; “Gregory XVII” and “Pius XIII”.​

 
First of all I know of the seperated churches that maintained Apostolic ssuccession but I was just speaking generally of the one true Church. As far as Peter never being in Rome, I think the Scriptural evidence is compelling. Whenever it says Babylon it meant Rome and it was a code word for Rome. Not only that, I don’t see how that has any bearing on where the one true church that Christ claimed to found gets its lineage. Whether he was ever in Rome or not whats the Point. Augustine while he was a saint or is a saint and is a doctor of the Church if he didn’t believe that Peter was the rock that Christ talked about then he was wrong. He can be wrong. He did not have the charism of infallibility
 
40.png
Hesychios:
The archealogical evidence on Vatican hill is pretty compelling, but you are right, there is not much in the way of hard and fast evidence from that period of time for anything.

Aside from scripture, there is no proof that Paul was anywhere he is supposed to have been during his lifetime either.

In those years the Christian (Catholic/Orthodox) Way was a very obscure group.
Click to expand...
True, there is no physical evidence of the Apostle’s “footprints” in the cities, but we do have the Scriptures which are historical accounts. The Scriptures cannot be discounted in respect to historical proof.

The problem with the “Pope Chart” is it puts Peter as “Pope,” from 42-67 A.D., 25 years. But not once is it mentioned in Scripture, even in the Book of Acts, that Peter had journeyed to Rome and “set up shop” there. And Paul in his Roman letter never once mentions Peter, even in greeting, and many date the Roman letter between 55-56 A.D. And why would Paul even have to write such a doctrinally packed letter to the Roman believers if Peter already headed that church? By that time, based on the chart, Peter would have been well established in Rome and all would have known and recognized it.

Also Clement 1, based on his letter to the Corinthians, did not write the letter in his own name, *i.e., *no hint of any kind of “Papal” authority. The idea that the Roman “Pope” was head over all the Church was a time developed notion, and primarily accepted only in the West. In fact, it was Pope Callistus I (217-222, my sources say 218-223] who first claimed the authority of his office on the Matt. 16:18 passage. And as I mentioned in my previous post, not even Augustine accepted that interpretation.
 
40.png
fulloftruth:
First of all I know of the seperated churches that maintained Apostolic ssuccession but I was just speaking generally of the one true Church. As far as Peter never being in Rome, I think the Scriptural evidence is compelling. Whenever it says Babylon it meant Rome and it was a code word for Rome. Not only that, I don’t see how that has any bearing on where the one true church that Christ claimed to found gets its lineage. Whether he was ever in Rome or not whats the Point. Augustine while he was a saint or is a saint and is a doctor of the Church if he didn’t believe that Peter was the rock that Christ talked about then he was wrong. He can be wrong. He did not have the charism of infallibility
Click to expand...
There is a widely-distributed tradition among Protestants that the real tomb of Peter is in Babylon (Iraq), where he died serving the Jewish diaspora there. The tradition is based upon the Scriptural reference to Peter as ‘apostle to the circumcision’, as well as upon Peter’s reference in his own epistle to the ‘Church in Babylon’. Some shrine or another actually claims to be the place in Iraq that Peter founded and where he died. Expect someone to whip THAT little piece of trivia out if you pull out your list of popes. :bigyikes:

Not to mention competing, contradictory ‘lists’ of popes.:bigyikes:

Not to mention interegnum periods.:bigyikes:

Not to mention antipopes. :bigyikes:

Not claiming that any of this is fair-minded or well-based in reason or historical evidence: but to glibly assume that a Protestant will ‘roll over and convert’ just because you have a purported ‘list’ of papal succession is naive. I was a convert to Mormonism. Wanna see my ‘line of apostolic succession’ back to the apostles Peter, James and John? :tiphat: :sleep: Didn’t think so.😉
 
40.png
fulloftruth:
Check out this list of Popes from Peter to John Paul II. Pretty convincing huh. I think that since no other church even claims to have Peter as thier earthly Rock, and Christ said he would use Peter as the Rock which he would start his eternal Church, then I think all of the Protestants should rethink there objections based on the reality of there options. There is only one.

popechart.com/Popelist.htm
Click to expand...
It’s great. If I’m not mistaken, nearly complete lists of the Bishops of Antioc and some other cities are also available. How can there be any doubt.

Pax Vobiscum.
 
Genealogies are defiantly nice but I would be careful, to a degree. Remember that one could say that the Throne of David has a definite direct Genealogy to Jesus. Yes, this is correct but there is more than one gemological list in the Bible on this issue.

I am not sure how the Catholic Church speaks on this matter. Certainly he cannot have multiple genealogical backgrounds, so Matthew and Luke must have looked at the Genealogy from different directions.

Either way one list has certain people holding the chair of David that the other does not and vice versa.
 
RBushlow said:
[Augustine]
once believed it was Peter himself but then changed his mind.

Where is that from?
Click to expand...

From his own writings: “‘On this rock I will build My church’ I have somewhere said of St. Peter – that the church is built upon him as the rock; a thought which is sung by many in the verse of St. Ambrose…But I know that I have since frequently said, that the word of the Lord, 'Thou art Petrus, and on this petra I will build my church,’ must be understood of him, whom Peter confessed as Son of the living God; and Peter so named after this rock, represents the person of the church, which is founded on this rock and has received the kingdom of heaven. For it is not said to him: ‘Thou art a rock’ (petra), but, ‘Thou art Peter’ (Petrus); and the rock was Christ, through confession of whom Simon received the name Peter…For the rock is not so named from Peter, but Peter from the rock (non enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra), even as Christ is not so called after the Christian, but the Christian after Christ.”

Augustine, in his day, and the independent North African church, attributed only limited authority to the Roman chair. In his numerous writings he rarely speaks of its authority at all, and when, only incidentally, showing that he attached far less importance to this matter than the Roman Popes themselves. It was in the latter part if Augustine’s life that he changed his mind on the interpretation of this verse.
 
I hate it when people start splitting hairs over whether the “rock” is Peter or his statement of faith. I’ve seen a lot of writings where people call Peter’s confession “the rock” but still recognize Peter’s primacy among the apostles.

You just can’t form a conclusion based on just the “upon this rock” statement. You have to read the whole passage in it’s context.

Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter (Kepha) in the same sentence in which He says “upon this rock (kepha) I will build my church.” Jesus grants Peter the keys to the kingdom and the authority to bind and loose immediately afterward.

Peter is clearly being singled out for something important here regardless of whether the “rock” is Peter, the man, or Peter’s faith.
 
40.png
RBushlow:
Where is that from?
Click to expand...
Here are his words:

“In one place I said… that the Church had been built on Peter as the
Rock… but in fact it was not said to Peter, “Thou art the Rock,” but rather “Thou art Peter.” The Rock was Jesus Christ, Peter having confessed Him as all the Church confesses Him, He was then called Peter, “the Rock”… (ed, for his faith) …Between these two sentiments let the reader choose the most probable.” (St. Augustine, Retractions - 13th Sermon; Contra Julianum 1:13)

St. Augustine also adds: "Peter had not a primacy over the apostles, but among the apostles, and Christ said to them “I will build upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee.” (ibid.)

In still another letter Augustine quotes Cyprian, with whom he is in full
agreement:

“For neither did Peter whom the Lord chose… when Paul afterwards disputed with him… claim or assume anything and arrogantly to himself, so as to say that he held a primacy and should rather be obeyed by newcomers…”

Finally, Augustine concludes, near the end of his earthly life, with these words on the “Rock of the Church”:

“Christ said to Peter… I will build thee upon Myself, I will not be built
upon thee. Those who wished to be built among men said, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas’ - however, those who did not wish to be built upon Peter but upon the Rock say, I am of Jesus Christ.” (Retractions, 13th Sermon)
 
Here are his words:

“In one place I said… that the Church had been built on Peter as the
Rock… but in fact it was not said to Peter, “Thou art the Rock,” but rather “Thou art Peter.” The Rock was Jesus Christ, Peter having confessed Him as all the Church confesses Him, He was then called Peter, “the Rock”… (ed, for his faith) …Between these two sentiments let the reader choose the most probable.” (St. Augustine, Retractions - 13th Sermon; Contra Julianum 1:13)

St. Augustine also adds: "Peter had not a primacy over the apostles, but among the apostles, and Christ said to them “I will build upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee.” (ibid.)

In still another letter Augustine quotes Cyprian, with whom he is in full
agreement:

“For neither did Peter whom the Lord chose… when Paul afterwards disputed with him… claim or assume anything and arrogantly to himself, so as to say that he held a primacy and should rather be obeyed by newcomers…”

Finally, Augustine concludes, near the end of his earthly life, with these words on the “Rock of the Church”:

“Christ said to Peter… I will build thee upon Myself, I will not be built
upon thee. Those who wished to be built among men said, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas’ - however, those who did not wish to be built upon Peter but upon the Rock say, I am of Jesus Christ.” (Retractions, 13th Sermon)
Click to expand...
Fr. A,

You arguments may seem “convincing”. Why then did Jesus change Simon’s name to Peter if he had no other intentions of doing so? If Simon’s name’s change to Peter mean nothing whatsoever, then Jesus would have just stick to his name Simon. You are trying to change the meaning of what Jesus intended. Can you explain then why Jesus change the name to Peter? Give us your Orthodx explanation.

Pio
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top