Protestants: Did you know that we Catholics have a line of popes going all the way back to Peter?

[Holly3278]

Hello to all of my separated brethren! Did you know that we Catholics have a line of popes going back all the way to Peter? It’s true! Check it out here!

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Amazing isn’t it?

 

[mozart-250]

Hello to all of my separated brethren! Did you know that we Catholics have a line of popes going back all the way to Peter? It’s true! Check it out here!

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Amazing isn’t it?

Yes I have seen lists of popes like this.

One question that maybe you can help me out with…

Would an independent historian (who does not have an agenda either way) agree with this list?

Thank you for your answer.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Hello to all of my separated brethren! Did you know that we Catholics have a line of popes going back all the way to Peter?

Yes. Most Protestants do know that.

The point of this thread is…?

 

[Atreyu]

Yes. Most Protestants do know that.

The point of this thread is…?

Not “most”, but “many”, I would hazard a guess. As a semi-independent observer, can you answer Mozart’s question?

 

[Rightlydivide]

This encapsulates the general view of historians, it is from a US News and World Report

“Yet the truth about Christianity’s early years—and its early popes—is shrouded in mystery. For at least two centuries, Christianity was one of many cults competing for the faith of Romans. Made up mainly of lower-middle-class Romans and immigrants, the congregations in Rome turned to the authority of a single bishop around A.D. 200.”

 

[Eden]

This encapsulates the general view of historians, it is from a US News and World Report

“Yet the truth about Christianity’s early years—and its early popes—is shrouded in mystery. For at least two centuries, Christianity was one of many cults competing for the faith of Romans. Made up mainly of lower-middle-class Romans and immigrants, the congregations in Rome turned to the authority of a single bishop around A.D. 200.”

So, US News and World Report denies the legitimacy of the first 14 of 266 popes? That’s not surprising considering the fact that Christians were persecuted in the first few centuries and remained “shrouded in mystery” from the outside since they were forced to worship secretly in catacombs, for instance. But really, there is no mystery. Our Church has kept the records and the names of the popes, including the first 14 that US News refuses to acknowledge:

1. 
   *]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)

 

[Rightlydivide]

I think the point being made is that outside of the internet, are there any secular or Christian historians that believe that list is anything resembling an accurate historical fact? Not that I know of. Does anyone know what textbook is used for Catholic seminaries and their general survey of Christian history?

 

[mozart-250]

I think the point being made is that outside of the internet, are there any secular or Christian historians that believe that list is anything resembling an accurate historical fact?

That is exactly the question I asked. Would a neutral historian (without any agenda or bias) regard this list of popes as a historical fact.

As wonderful as your denomination might be, it is hardly neutral in this regards.

 

[ralphinal]

I have a friend who studied in Rome and another in a seminary now. I have sent them messages to find out what books they use for history.

More than likely, I bet that there is no good source for the earliest popes. I base this on the fact that there is so little information outside of the Bible from the first century on Jesus and the Apostles.

BUT, is it not safe to say that only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can trace themselves back this far with no trouble?

 

[mozart-250]

I have a friend who studied in Rome and another in a seminary now. I have sent them messages to find out what books they use for history.

More than likely, I bet that there is no good source for the earliest popes. I base this on the fact that there is so little information outside of the Bible from the first century on Jesus and the Apostles.

BUT, is it not safe to say that only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can trace themselves back this far with no trouble?

Thanks!

I’m fairly sure I have come across in at least one ECF writing (was it Iraneus?) a list of “popes” back to Peter. I seem to have recall reading that another ECF writing has another list of popes…and I seem to recall that these lists contradict each other in some places. I am not sure…I could be wrong here.

These would be the primary sources that a historian would use methinks (and certainly the ECF writings are interesting from a historical perspective).

I seem to recall having read that the issue of establishing historical fact from that time period is tricky because of a scarcity of primary sources. So then the issues in my mind are whether there are enough primary sources in this issue to establish fact. Another issue is how much we know of this time period is established fact versus speculation and best guesses.

I would not be surprised if the answer to this question is that we are in a big “grey area” here.

Of course the larger question is if this is a historical fact what it all logically means.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

That is exactly the question I asked. Would a neutral historian (without any agenda or bias) regard this list of popes as a historical fact.

**Yes; try an encyclopedia Britannica or any other in your local library under Papacy, Look up Ann Landers column (Jewish columnist) who confirmed from a Jewish perspective the Roman Catholic church was founded by Jesus Christ himself and the first Pope was Peter. What is more interesting, throughout the centuries many nations and enemies of the Catholic church, always knew the Roman Catholic church is the one Jesus Christ founded on Peter and the popes. The enemies of God always sought out the pope to destroy christianity.

The Catholic church, the Jewish and many secular authors have listed the successors of Peter by naming every Pope to the present time of the author.**

Peace be with you

 

[Glaucon]

mozart-250;3808508:

That is exactly the question I asked. Would a neutral historian (without any agenda or bias) regard this list of popes as a historical fact.

**Yes; try an encyclopedia Britannica or any other in your local library under Papacy, Look up Ann Landers column (Jewish columnist) who confirmed from a Jewish perspective the Roman Catholic church was founded by Jesus Christ himself and the first Pope was Peter. What is more interesting, throughout the centuries many nations and enemies of the Catholic church, always knew the Roman Catholic church is the one Jesus Christ founded on Peter and the popes. The enemies of God always sought out the pope to destroy christianity.

The Catholic church, the Jewish and many secular authors have listed the successors of Peter by naming every Pope to the present time of the author.**

Peace be with you

Thanks. Here’s a link to help buttress that point:

From This Rock.

Though that wasn’t exactly her point when she said it. If you read the excerpt carefully, you’ll see that it’s implied that Roman Catholicism’s just “one out of many, nothing really special”.

Though as a Catholic, I’m glad to know that she got that bit nailed.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;3809109:

Thanks. Here’s a link to help buttress that point:

From This Rock

.

Though that wasn’t exactly her point when she said it. If you read the excerpt carefully, you’ll see that it’s implied that Roman Catholicism’s just “one out of many, nothing really special”.

Though as a Catholic, I’m glad to know that she got that bit nailed.

The reason I recalled reading this article many years ago, is because when she first listed the church founded by Jesus Christ was the Roman Catholic church, Ann Landers got hammered by the nations protestants and evangelicals. that she wrote a second article to this topic, if my memory is correct, she identifies Peter as the first Pope, or referenced the Popes, now this is from memory, but she did repeat the ariticle of religion founders due to the fact she listed Jesus founded the Roman Catholic church.

Peace be with you

 

[Rightlydivide]

I have a friend who studied in Rome and another in a seminary now. I have sent them messages to find out what books they use for history.

More than likely, I bet that there is no good source for the earliest popes. I base this on the fact that there is so little information outside of the Bible from the first century on Jesus and the Apostles.

BUT, is it not safe to say that only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can trace themselves back this far with no trouble?

No trouble? No, I think there are significant problems. However, most of those a competent theologian answers by speaking about how doctrine can develop.

 

[catharina]

Yes I have seen lists of popes like this.

One question that maybe you can help me out with…

Would an independent historian (who does not have an agenda either way) agree with this list?

Thank you for your answer.

Whenever this subject arises, I feel called to add this.

Much to my own astonishment, at the death of Pope John Paul II, even the secular media chose to describe him (historically) as the 263rd successor of Peter. This historical fact would never have been mentioned in years past.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Are we seriously using Ann Landers and historian in the same thread? I think we are! The conflicting lists are generally given as:

“Linus, Cletus, Clemens (Hegesippus, ap. Epiphanium, Canon of Mass).
Linus, Anencletus, Clemens (Irenaeus, Africanus ap. Eusebium).
Linus, Anacletus, Clemens (Jerome).
Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens (Poem against Marcion),
Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus [Hippolytus (?), “Liberian Catal.”- “Liber. Pont.”].
Linus, Clemens, Anacletus (Optatus, Augustine). “

 

[mozart-250]

Are we seriously using Ann Landers and historian in the same thread? I think we are! The conflicting lists are generally given as:

“Linus, Cletus, Clemens (Hegesippus, ap. Epiphanium, Canon of Mass).
Linus, Anencletus, Clemens (Irenaeus, Africanus ap. Eusebium).
Linus, Anacletus, Clemens (Jerome).
Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens (Poem against Marcion),
Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus [Hippolytus (?), “Liberian Catal.”- “Liber. Pont.”].
Linus, Clemens, Anacletus (Optatus, Augustine). “

These lists are source materials that historians would use to establish the claims of the papacy.

On the one hand, we do have six independent sources that document some type of central organization of the church from the time of Peter.

On the other hand they contradict each other. So how would a historian deal with this? I do know that in the field of criminal law, a defense attorney would have a field day if six prosecution witnesses contradicted each other. But history is not criminal law.

Somehow, when I read the book of Acts and the epistles, I do not get the sense that Peter (although there is evidence he was a prominent apostle) considered himself to be the “Vicar of Christ” who was “incapable of being incorrect” (much less the remaining apostles).

Unless Ann Landers or the secular news media have studied the source data, I would hardly view them as credible sources.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

These lists are source materials that historians would use to establish the claims of the papacy.

On the one hand, we do have six independent sources that document some type of central organization of the church from the time of Peter.

On the other hand they contradict each other. So how would a historian deal with this? I do know that in the field of criminal law, a defense attorney would have a field day if six prosecution witnesses contradicted each other. But history is not criminal law.

Somehow, when I read the book of Acts and the epistles, I do not get the sense that Peter (although there is evidence he was a prominent apostle) considered himself to be the “Vicar of Christ” who was “incapable of being incorrect” (much less the remaining apostles).

Unless Ann Landers or the secular news media have studied the source data, I would hardly view them as credible sources.

**It is always the case with the anticatholic theme, when history proves the case in support of catholicism, one asks for an outside source, when given a secular source including authentic Britannica encyclopedia, one is not satisified when given proof. But then what more proof does one need other than Jesus himself building his church on Peter, and yet anticatholics refuse to even listen to Jesus himself. So now what Jesus is not a credible source either?

The interesting thing about this topic is whether there is dispute of which pope succeeded the other in which order or during the first 30 martyred popes of which replaced which one at what time can easily be misread, because they had no phones or internet back then, so if one pope was captured and martyred, and another replaced the martyred pope, by the time news reached the end of the line, a martyred pope could have exchanged 3times by the time one got news of the first one martyred, thus unclear history to the succession of popes.

One must be truthful here to one owns concious, that the Pope the successor of Peter was recognized in history is a matter of uncontested historical fact. by both religious and secular scholars period. To even raise the doubt of historical documents proves that the Pope of the Roman Catholic church has always been the successor of Peter the first Pope that Jesus built his church.

It stands to reason that the list of Popes places the only Christian Catholic people from the first century on…till today no other is ever recorded in history as successors to Peter. Can anyone disprove the list of popes? The only living authority that has recorded history of Popes and christian historical events comes from the Catholic church herself. Why should the church Jesus built have to lie about her leaders, and the martyrdom they suffered for all of Christianity?

Something is wrong with reason when one doubts both religious, secular and or historical facts recorded by pagan rulers, who all believed in the Pope of the Catholic church, either by faith, or as an enemy to their pagan ways. So if physical evidence, historical evidence, 2000 years of faithful evidence recorded by different ages and peoples prove to the fact that the popes of the Roman Catholic church are the successors of Peter, only reveals ones bias of anti catholicism, and refuses truth.

Peace**

 

[catharina]

**It is always the case with the anticatholic theme, when history proves the case in support of catholicism, one asks for an outside source, when given a secular source including authentic Britannica encyclopedia, one is not satisified when given proof. But then what more proof does one need other than Jesus himself building his church on Peter, and yet anticatholics refuse to even listen to Jesus himself. So now what Jesus is not a credible source either?

The interesting thing about this topic is whether there is dispute of which pope succeeded the other in which order or during the first 30 martyred popes of which replaced which one at what time can easily be misread, because they had no phones or internet back then, so if one pope was captured and martyred, and another replaced the martyred pope, by the time news reached the end of the line, a martyred pope could have exchanged 3times by the time one got news of the first one martyred, thus unclear history to the succession of popes.

One must be truthful here to one owns concious, that the Pope the successor of Peter was recognized in history is a matter of uncontested historical fact. by both religious and secular scholars period. To even raise the doubt of historical documents proves that the Pope of the Roman Catholic church has always been the successor of Peter the first Pope that Jesus built his church.

It stands to reason that the list of Popes places the only Christian Catholic people from the first century on…till today no other is ever recorded in history as successors to Peter. Can anyone disprove the list of popes? The only living authority that has recorded history of Popes and christian historical events comes from the Catholic church herself. Why should the church Jesus built have to lie about her leaders, and the martyrdom they suffered for all of Christianity?

Something is wrong with reason when one doubts both religious, secular and or historical facts recorded by pagan rulers, who all believed in the Pope of the Catholic church, either by faith, or as an enemy to their pagan ways. So if physical evidence, historical evidence, 2000 years of faithful evidence recorded by different ages and peoples prove to the fact that the popes of the Roman Catholic church are the successors of Peter, only reveals ones bias of anti catholicism, and refuses truth.

Peace**

Oh my goodness - very well said.

I’ll repeat my post as well because when even the very secular media has to salute history, it seems we’ve reached a new day a-dawning. I’ve been alive for the reign and deaths of five Popes and now we have Benedict XVI. The mention of Papal succession gave me goose bumps.

**
"Whenever this subject arises, I feel called to add this.

Much to my own astonishment, at the death of Pope John Paul II, even the secular media chose to describe him (historically) as the 263rd successor of Peter. This historical fact would never have been mentioned in years past."**

 

[Sepharad]

When one Pope dies and another is not yet elected, who is the Pope during this interregnum period?

And isn’t it correct to say that technically, there is no Pope until the new one is elected?