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

[catharina]

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?

We might say “the chair of Peter is vacant.” It’s true in the technical and temporal sense.
OTOH, God already knows who will be elected, announced and reign as the next Pope.
So in the spiritual sense … well, I’ve never heard any Catholic say “we have no Pope.”

I hope this answer helps. It’s only drawn from my experience, 62 years as a Catholic.

I’m not quoting any doctrine here!

 

[Rightlydivide]

QUOTE=Gabriel of 12;3810283]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?
Often when having a discussion about scripture, you will see examples like this. If one disagrees with someone’s interpretation of scripture(and Gabriel has been around long enough to know better), they will resort to the old “what you do not believe the plain words of the Bible” defense. Obviously even those who adhere to Peterine primacy, in some form like the Orthodox, disagree on the exact nature of this state. One can go to any number of patristic fathers and find differing interpretations. It does not prove someone’s point, instead its subliminal message is that you are either stupid or less than a Christian than the person who makes the statement.

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.

There is no credible historical proof of the martyrdoms you are claiming for bishops of Rome past Peter and then a few men in the early 2nd century.

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.

Could you possibly overstate your case more? I am not sure you could.

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.

Not true at all and you know it.

 

[ibkc]

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?

The Oxford Dictionary of Popes was compiled by an non-Catholic Oxford scholar, J.N.D. Kelly. This resource was used in compiling Wikipedia’s List of Popes, which does not deviate significantly from New Advent’s.

Hopefully that’s an answer you will be able to accept.

 

[JimG]

The historicity of the list of popes is well accepted by most mainline historians, including protestants. The protestant theologian and writer of ecclesiastical history J.N.D. Kelly provides a list here which is identical to the accepted Catholic list. Just because one doesn’t accept the claims of the papacy doesn’t mean one has to deny history.

The Church was quite diligent about preserving the names of the bishops of Rome; this fact is mentioned in Eusebius’ ecclesiastical history.

Of course the papacy has changed over the course of 2000 years. Peter wasn’t called “pope.” That title was an affectionate term arising from the word for “papa” which came later. But the office was the same. He didn’t have a college of cardinals. He was designated by Christ to “Feed my sheep.” From the outset, the Bishop of Rome was the source of unity in the Church.

No other institution in the world has a leadership which can be traced back 2000 years. This institution was founded by Christ who promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

 

[catharina]

No other institution in the world has a leadership which can be traced back 2000 years. This institution was founded by Christ who promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

Thank you for pointing that out. It’s a beautiful and worthy subject for meditation: As Christ promised, here we are, in His Church, 2000 years after the Resurrection.

 

[ibkc]

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.

This stuff is really easy to find if you just put forth a little effort. Besides the aforementioned J.N.D. Kelly, P.G. Maxwell-Stuart’s Chronicle of the Popes might be good for you to check out.

 

[Cattitude]

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).

Perhaps you do not understand papal infallibility. No pope has ever been considered to be “incapable of being incorrect.”

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

 

[SenorSalsa]

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).

Paul seems to have known that Peter was “Vicar of Christ”

Galatians 1
18
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.
19
But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.
20
(As to what I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying.)

He singled out Peter(Cephas) as the one person he needed permission from in order to preach to the nations. None of the other 11. It should also be noted that apparently, James was the Bishop of Jeruslem. So it would make sense that he would have stopped to show respect to him as well.

 

[Eden]

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?

During the period between the time when a pope dies and the new pope is named, the Holy See is administered by a regency of the College of Cardinals. In other words, the previous pope’s assistants take care of the day-to-day functioning of the Holy See until the installation of the new pope.

 

[mozart-250]

The Oxford Dictionary of Popes was compiled by an non-Catholic Oxford scholar, J.N.D. Kelly. This resource was used in compiling Wikipedia’s List of Popes, which does not deviate significantly from New Advent’s.

Hopefully that’s an answer you will be able to accept.

That’s all that I was asking.

 

[ralphinal]

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

So how far back do you think that the Catholic Church can be traced? What about Eastern Orthodox?

 

[Rightlydivide]

So how far back do you think that the Catholic Church can be traced? What about Eastern Orthodox?

I think the safest thing to say is that the two churches you mentioned developed out of the earliest Christians and developed doctrines distinctive to those groups slowly along the way.
There is not a firm date.

 

[Eden]

I think the safest thing to say is that the two churches you mentioned developed out of the earliest Christians and developed doctrines distinctive to those groups slowly along the way.
There is not a firm date.

Well, both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches agree that we were the same Church founded by Christ until the Schism. The difference in opinion is on who split from the original Church with the Schism. The earliest Christians were in the Church and the Church grew, but it never ceased. The Catholic Church is the same Church of the earliest Christians, just 2,000 years now down the line. Does a tree look the same hundreds of years after it was a sapling? No. Yet, it is still the same tree. Do you look the same as you did in infancy? The same is true of the Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church.

 

[ralphinal]

I think the safest thing to say is that the two churches you mentioned developed out of the earliest Christians and developed doctrines distinctive to those groups slowly along the way.
There is not a firm date.

There may not be a date like March 23. There should be a range of years.

 

[Rightlydivide]

There may not be a date like March 23. There should be a range of years.

The irony. One of my papers in grad school was over arbitrary dating of the gospels, specifically how the ranges given are only speculative. For example, if the range of Mark is 55 AD to 75 AD, the most common range…why not 48 AD to 81 AD instead…
ok but you have asked so nice.
Why not? 110 AD to 400 AD

 

[Rightlydivide]

Well, both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches agree that we were the same Church founded by Christ until the Schism. The difference in opinion is on who split from the original Church with the Schism. The earliest Christians were in the Church and the Church grew, but it never ceased. The Catholic Church is the same Church of the earliest Christians, just 2,000 years now down the line. Does a tree look the same hundreds of years after it was a sapling? No. Yet, it is still the same tree. Do you look the same as you did in infancy? The same is true of the Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church.

Part of the difficulty in dealing with presuppositions is recognizing them. I understand mine. Because I became a Christian so late in life and the crux of this conversion was a personal salvation experience, I have no predisposition to think that when things differ in scope and focus, they are the same essential thing.
I understand the sapling theory. Anyone can understand it. I even have indicated I accept components of it. We differ in the degree to which we accept the sapling theory.
You have a valid argument but it is not persuasive to me.

 

[tbuley]

Let us not forget the great roman pontiff Pope Benedict IX -
. St. Peter Damian described him as “feasting on immorality” and “a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest” in the Liber Gomorrhianus.
He was also accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of “many vile adulteries and murders.” Pope Victor III in his third book of Dialogues, referred to “his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.”

 

[ralphinal]

The irony. One of my papers in grad school was over arbitrary dating of the gospels, specifically how the ranges given are only speculative. For example, if the range of Mark is 55 AD to 75 AD, the most common range…why not 48 AD to 81 AD instead…
ok but you have asked so nice.
Why not? 110 AD to 400 AD

So you would put the Church after the death of the Apostles and almost all that they taught.

What dates do you hold for Scriptures?

 

[Rightlydivide]

So you would put the Church after the death of the Apostles and almost all that they taught.

What dates do you hold for Scriptures?

What do you mean by “the Church” to clarify?
When I write about Roman Catholic distinctives that seperate us, I do not believe those distinctives are teachings from the Apostolic age.
The key to this is the totality of the Ante-Nicene Fathers writings and most importantly scripture. When you read them, not isolated passages, you get a picture of the church that is remarkably similiar to the things that unite all Orthodox Christians.

The linchpin is Matthew. This is from one of my papers:

"The date of the composition of Matthew is an important and neglected component of the overall picture of the Synoptic Problem. It is my contention that Matthew is the more primitive gospel because of the audience and issues it addresses. "

There are no reasons not to date Matthew quite early. I hold to the Two-Gospel solution.

 

[Jestocost]

Let us not forget the great roman pontiff Pope Benedict IX -
. St. Peter Damian described him as “feasting on immorality” and “a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest” in the Liber Gomorrhianus.
He was also accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of “many vile adulteries and murders.” Pope Victor III in his third book of Dialogues, referred to “his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.”

Congratulations. Somebody finally stumbled upon the real “bad guy” Pope. Usually the best they can come up with is poor demented Pope Stephen VI who put the corpse of his predecessor on trial. But you forgot to mention how he instituted Marian worship, invented real presence, created the priesthood, and re-wrote the bible.

Oh, wait. He didn’t do any of those things. In fact the sum total of his effect on the church’s doctrine is exactly zero. Now why do you think such an evil man would refrain from actually using the power of the papacy, especially when he went to all the trouble to attain it not just once, but three times? It’s almost as if Someone was preventing him from doing so…