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

[Atreyu]

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.”

Did he flatly, unequivocally, deny Jesus? Not once, but three times?

What is worse?

All Popes are sinners. The Catholic Church has survived despite their sins.

 

[wisdomseeker]

check this out!

Archeologists Find Oldest Catholic Church (B)

10-June-2008 – Catholic World News Brief

Archeologists Find Oldest Catholic Church
Amman, Jun. 10, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The Jordan Times reports that a group of archeologists have unearthed the world’s oldest Catholic church in Rihab, Jordan.

The church, which was built underground, dates to somewhere between 33 and 70 AD. Rihab is located about 30 miles east of the Jordan River and a roughly equal distance north of the Jordanian capital, Amman. The region is home to 30 other ancient churches.

Click here to share this news story with a friend.

---

 

[ralphinal]

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.

Sorry. By Church I mean the RCC. I should have been clear on that.

I have no issue with the Two Gospel Solution, and I hold that the entire New Testament was finished before 70 AD. It was my understanding that Mark was written in Rome under Peter’s supervision, but that would not mean that he did not have the other two to look at. John was clearly written to fill in the gaps.

Back to the development of doctrine and the dates of the RCC or EO Church. If your position is correct, that would mean that either the early Church left Apostolic teachings or these teachings were changed into what would become the EO and RCC Churches. Would this not mean that for some period of time, there was no true Christain Church on the earth, or am I overstating it?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Back to the development of doctrine and the dates of the RCC or EO Church. If your position is correct, that would mean that either the early Church left Apostolic teachings or these teachings were changed into what would become the EO and RCC Churches. Would this not mean that for some period of time, there was no true Christain Church on the earth, or am I overstating it?

That is not my position at all. I believe that we have the teachings of the early Christian church in the New Testament. I think when we look at the patristic writings as well, you see, for the most part, a wide smattering of viewpoints on any number of topics.
Let me explain a little more. Having read the New Testament well into life, I see the New Testament, specifically Paul, writing to churches that hold views in many cases contrary to his own. I see people attempting to follow different leaders. Some books are absolutely geared towards believers that hold on to their Jewish paradigm in the face of a rapidly spreading Gentile Christianity as well. Turning to Revelation, the seven churches differ greatly as well…yet they are never told they are not Christians despite these differences.
Where you probably see unity, I see a church from the beginning that has a smattering of viewpoints as well. Have you ever read Justyn Martyr and then turned around and read someone else and wondered to which degree they agree?
The funny thing is that my view is no different in some regards from almost all historians and any seminary book you would read about early Christianity (you probably are aware of that), I just have radically different conclusions about the truth of Jesus Christ and scripture than they do.

 

[ralphinal]

That is not my position at all. I believe that we have the teachings of the early Christian church in the New Testament. I think when we look at the patristic writings as well, you see, for the most part, a wide smattering of viewpoints on any number of topics.
Let me explain a little more. Having read the New Testament well into life, I see the New Testament, specifically Paul, writing to churches that hold views in many cases contrary to his own. I see people attempting to follow different leaders. Some books are absolutely geared towards believers that hold on to their Jewish paradigm in the face of a rapidly spreading Gentile Christianity as well. Turning to Revelation, the seven churches differ greatly as well…yet they are never told they are not Christians despite these differences.
Where you probably see unity, I see a church from the beginning that has a smattering of viewpoints as well. Have you ever read Justyn Martyr and then turned around and read someone else and wondered to which degree they agree?
The funny thing is that my view is no different in some regards from almost all historians and any seminary book you would read about early Christianity (you probably are aware of that), I just have radically different conclusions about the truth of Jesus Christ and scripture than they do.

I understand. I was afraid that you were heading towards a Great Apostacy type position, which I had never seen you take before.

I can relate with what you are saying. My next question is two part. First, when Jesus prayed that we be one, what did he mean.

Second, how did it come to pass that the only theological views by the mid second century were those that are held by the RCC and those in union with them and the EO? In other words, why was it 1400 years before any major theological disagreements would split the Church? I guess I am asking where were the Baptists, Anabaptists, etc., or are they safely called new additions?

 

[ibkc]

I note that Rightlydivide has completely ignored proof of objective, non-Catholic scholars who agree with the Catholic Church’s list of early popes.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I note that Rightlydivide has completely ignored proof of objective, non-Catholic scholars who agree with the Catholic Church’s list of early popes.

I have not read the books because I do not own them. I was going to take a trip to the library soon. I have often seen lists in books followed by the admission that the lists are conjecture and shrouded in mystery.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I understand. I was afraid that you were heading towards a Great Apostacy type position, which I had never seen you take before.

I can relate with what you are saying. My next question is two part. First, when Jesus prayed that we be one, what did he mean.

One of the key words used by Christ is that they would be perfect. No doubt, in prayer, we strive towards Christian perfectionism in words and deeds. Being “one” is what Christ wants. Now, even Catholics admit we are not truly one, although perhaps they contend that within their specific group you are one?? That would be the case if being one is described in the most general terms I suppose.

Second, how did it come to pass that the only theological views by the mid second century were those that are held by the RCC and those in union with them and the EO?

I do not agree with this statement at all. Christianity had many different expressions and in what way could anyone call the diversity of patristic writings unifed…or the “only” theological views? We have to be careful with defintions here. If I only knew about Catholicism from Jack Chick, I would have a very distorted opinion indeed. Likewise, most of the surviving documents exist are criticisms of certain groups, so I would exercise caution when historically evaluating the exact belief system of various groups.
Now, you and I both know that the beliefs that seperate us lack strong historical evidence in the 2nd and 3rd century. No need to derail the conversation with specifics.

In other words, why was it 1400 years before any major theological disagreements would split the Church?

No. But what do you mean by split? That is a Catholic paradigm and rife with Catholic presuppositions Ralph. I cannot, have not, read the Ante-Nicene Fathers and seen this degree of unity you describe.

I guess I am asking where were the Baptists, Anabaptists, etc., or are they safely called new additions?

There are elements of these groups throughout history. This is not some kind of Trail of Blood hocum but there are absolutely groups that preached some Baptist distinctives interspersed throughout history. Not that I am a Baptist. One of the intersting things that occured with the Paulicians is the acknowledgement that through primary sources they must be revevaluated as a “dualistic” heretical sect. Regardless, historical continuity is irrelevant to me if it does not have doctrinal continuity. In my estimation, that does not exist and that is not really a strange view at all. To answer it, Catholic theologians, almost without exception and granted I did not attend a Catholic graduate school, seem to support the development of doctrine to answer this charge. That is certainly their right and it is a defensible position but I am not persuaded.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

**Hello Rightlydivide, I was not giving an interpretation of what Jesus states in scripture, and please dont take my comment as pointing to those who dont believe in Jesus Words as being stupid. When Jesus speaks a subliminal message he calls it a parable, when he does not, Jesus means what he states, “you are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church” Jesus has no subliminal message here, and I cannot give an interpretation different from what Jesus states. The point I make here if God said it who can contest it? Forgive me if you mistaken my comment as a subliminal message, I meant my yes to be yes and my no to be no.

What finds my curiosity here is when you come against the Roman Catholic church you use (Orthodox) anothers position to argue your case, as a reason for a point to which you do not subscribe too. Why do you do that?**

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.

I understand you have read Justin Martyr? have you read of the early greek and latin church fathers. You will find these very credible historical figures who taught and wrote about the Popes. But then, you may not accept these living Catholics in the first 3 centuries as a credible source. So I would ask you to read up on Pliny the younger, a pagan (secular source). Maybe if you avail yourself to these resources, you will find them credible./B]]

**Tell me Rightlydivide, do you find Brittanica encyclopedia and others as not a viable source outside the Christian community, that records the same list of popes as the Roman Catholic church starting from Peter to today?

What I found in the history of the Roman Catholic church is that it recorded the good and the bad, just like the bible does, this is why I find these early church fathers and the history recorded of the Catholic church reliable, especially when you compare christian events to the secular events in history, you will find pope so and so surfacing time and time again.

ps, what do have against Ann Landers a Jewish columnist? If you read her article, you will find that she did her homework from both her Jewish tradition, christian tradition and secular tradition and came up with the same result. Jesus fouded his church upon Peter, in any case, a poster was asking for another source outside the catholic church, you cant get more secular than an Ann Landers column.

Peace be with you.**

 

[ralphinal]

One of the key words used by Christ is that they would be perfect. No doubt, in prayer, we strive towards Christian perfectionism in words and deeds. Being “one” is what Christ wants. Now, even Catholics admit we are not truly one, although perhaps they contend that within their specific group you are one?? That would be the case if being one is described in the most general terms I suppose.

We want to be one, but humans keep messing it up. I cannot see, as someone with Catholic eyes, how the Holy Spirit would encourage multiple denominations.

I do not agree with this statement at all. Christianity had many different expressions and in what way could anyone call the diversity of patristic writings unifed…or the “only” theological views? We have to be careful with defintions here. If I only knew about Catholicism from Jack Chick, I would have a very distorted opinion indeed. Likewise, most of the surviving documents exist are criticisms of certain groups, so I would exercise caution when historically evaluating the exact belief system of various groups.
Now, you and I both know that the beliefs that seperate us lack strong historical evidence in the 2nd and 3rd century. No need to derail the conversation with specifics.

There is some truth to this. I guess my question is if you took a second century Christian and had them attend every denomination, which would seem most familiar? Assuming language and custom are not withstanding.

No. But what do you mean by split? That is a Catholic paradigm and rife with Catholic presuppositions Ralph. I cannot, have not, read the Ante-Nicene Fathers and seen this degree of unity you describe.

You would get the same issue with EO, I would thing. Yes, the level of unity of the Ante-Nicene Fathers is not like the Magisterium is today, but are there major differences like you have between RC and Lutherans? Or Baptists and Quakers?

There are elements of these groups throughout history. This is not some kind of Trail of Blood hocum but there are absolutely groups that preached some Baptist distinctives interspersed throughout history. Not that I am a Baptist. One of the intersting things that occured with the Paulicians is the acknowledgement that through primary sources they must be revevaluated as a “dualistic” heretical sect. Regardless, historical continuity is irrelevant to me if it does not have doctrinal continuity. In my estimation, that does not exist and that is not really a strange view at all. To answer it, Catholic theologians, almost without exception and granted I did not attend a Catholic graduate school, seem to support the development of doctrine to answer this charge. That is certainly their right and it is a defensible position but I am not persuaded.

So, there is no Christian Church on earth that can be traced to the time of the Apostles. RCC and EO go to the Second century and everyone else, though some groups (many of them heretical) may have held their views, cannot be shown that far back as well.

 

[mozart-250]

**Tell me Rightlydivide, do you find Brittanica encyclopedia and others as not a viable source outside the Christian community, that records the same list of popes as the Roman Catholic church starting from Peter to today?

ps, what do have against Ann Landers a Jewish columnist? If you read her article, you will find that she did her homework from both her Jewish tradition, christian tradition and secular tradition and came up with the same result. Jesus fouded his church upon Peter, in any case, a poster was asking for another source outside the catholic church, you cant get more secular than an Ann Landers column.

Peace be with you.**

Just one comment about Brittanica encyclopedia and Ann Landers.

I for one am most interested in the opinion of neutral historians who have studied the primary sources available to them and have arrived at informed opinions.

As scholarly as the encyclopedia Brittanica may or may not be, I do not know whether their list of popes was compiled by historians who studied the primary sources, or whether their list of popes was compiled by non-historian types using the Catholic sources.

As far as Ann Landers goes…she certainly would not have any reason to study the primary sources. It certainly is easiest on this topic to just use the Catholic sources and move on.

Since I asked for (and was provided the name of) a neutral source that accepts the Catholic list of popes, that tells me that at the mininum your list of popes has at least some historical credibility.

The next question would be whether this list of popes is the general consensus of informed neutral historians, or whether there is some debate in the field on this question. However this is not what I asked. I do know that academia and debates go hand in hand.

It is sufficient to me (for now) to know that your list of popes has at a mininum some historical credibility, and therefore it will not be a topic that I will expend precious energy to contest.

See, I can be reasonable.

 

[Rightlydivide]

There is some truth to this. I guess my question is if you took a second century Christian and had them attend every denomination, which would seem most familiar? Assuming language and custom are not withstanding.

Good question. As you recall Martyr describes a very simple worship service in …the exact work escapes me…that many Christians could lay claim to. You could even look to the Didache I suppose and I once again, several groups would recognize their worship in this.

You would get the same issue with EO, I would thing. Yes, the level of unity of the Ante-Nicene Fathers is not like the Magisterium is today, but are there major differences like you have between RC and Lutherans? Or Baptists and Quakers?

Yes to the first and I would say no to the second.

So, there is no Christian Church on earth that can be traced to the time of the Apostles. RCC and EO go to the Second century and everyone else, though some groups (many of them heretical) may have held their views, cannot be shown that far back as well.

No. I do not believe there is. One can certainly make a valid argument for this and of course you and other Catholics do when you appeal to the development of doctrine and the historical accuracy of certain patristic writers. I am not persuaded and you are!

Thank you for the conversation.

 

[ralphinal]

Good question. As you recall Martyr describes a very simple worship service in …the exact work escapes me…that many Christians could lay claim to. You could even look to the Didache I suppose and I once again, several groups would recognize their worship in this.

I have read that work as well, and I cannot for the life of me remember which it is.

Yes to the first and I would say no to the second.

No. I do not believe there is. One can certainly make a valid argument for this and of course you and other Catholics do when you appeal to the development of doctrine and the historical accuracy of certain patristic writers. I am not persuaded and you are!

Thank you for the conversation.

And I thank you as well.

One more question, if I may be so bold…
If there is no Christian Church that can be traced to the Apostles, does that mean that the Church founded by Christ has ceased to exist on earth? Not talking about anything “founded on the Bible.” I mean the honest to goodness Church that Peter and Paul and them understood as their faith.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Hello Rightlydivide, I was not giving an interpretation of what Jesus states in scripture, and please dont take my comment as pointing to those who dont believe in Jesus Words as being stupid. When Jesus speaks a subliminal message he calls it a parable, when he does not, Jesus means what he states, “you are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church” Jesus has no subliminal message here, and I cannot give an interpretation different from what Jesus states. The point I make here if God said it who can contest it? Forgive me if you mistaken my comment as a subliminal message, I meant my yes to be yes and my no to be no.
Hello and that is not accurate. There are several examples of people being confused and staying confused about what Christ meant.

What finds my curiosity here is when you come against the Roman Catholic church you use (Orthodox) anothers position to argue your case, as a reason for a point to which you do not subscribe too. Why do you do that?

Come against? That is rather strong for this thread. I think anyone reading the thread understands my point.

I understand you have read Justin Martyr? have you read of the early greek and latin church fathers. You will find these very credible historical figures who taught and wrote about the Popes.
I have read the Ante-Nicene Fathers and most everything I know of…there is not THAT much to really get through. I do not think you will find much at all from the first hundred years at all.

But then, you may not accept these living Catholics in the first 3 centuries as a credible source. So I would ask you to read up on Pliny the younger, a pagan (secular source). Maybe if you avail yourself to these resources, you will find them credible./B]]

What would Pliny tell me?

Tell me Rightlydivide, do you find Brittanica encyclopedia and others as not a viable source outside the Christian community, that records the same list of popes as the Roman Catholic church starting from Peter to today?
No. The list is conjecture and contradictory. People repeat the list as historical fact and I do not think it is.

What I found in the history of the Roman Catholic church is that it recorded the good and the bad, just like the bible does, this is why I find these early church fathers and the history recorded of the Catholic church reliable, especially when you compare christian events to the secular events in history, you will find pope so and so surfacing time and time again.

ps, what do have against Ann Landers a Jewish columnist?

She time and time again gives really bad advice. Did you ever notice how often she has to retract her opinion. Actually I thought she as already dead but maybe that was her sister. But as a historian, I have not read any of her books or journal articles and cannot really comment on them.

If you read her article, you will find that she did her homework from both her Jewish tradition, christian tradition and secular tradition and came up with the same result. Jesus fouded his church upon Peter, in any case, a poster was asking for another source outside the catholic church, you cant get more secular than an Ann Landers column.

Ann Landers…uh I will let people decide about that one…

Peace be with you.

And you too

 

[Rightlydivide]

I have read that work as well, and I cannot for the life of me remember which it is.

And I thank you as well.

One more question, if I may be so bold…
If there is no Christian Church that can be traced to the Apostles, does that mean that the Church founded by Christ has ceased to exist on earth? Not talking about anything “founded on the Bible.” I mean the honest to goodness Church that Peter and Paul and them understood as their faith.

No. I believe that people who follow their teachings can absolutely lay claim to being part of that church. I do not think historical continuity can be traced. I do not suggest it is not there, I do not think it can be proven.

 

[ralphinal]

No. I believe that people who follow their teachings can absolutely lay claim to being part of that church. I do not think historical continuity can be traced. I do not suggest it is not there, I do not think it can be proven.

Ok. I understand where you are coming from on this.

 

[anthony022071]

Eusebius:
“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

“Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: ‘And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.’” Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, 4:22 (A.D. 180).

St. Epiphanius:
"At Rome. the first Apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul; then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul, whom Paul remembers in his Epistle to the Romans … The succession of the bishops of Rome is as follows: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telephorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, whom I have already mentioned above in my enumerating of the bishops. (The Panacea against All Heresies 27,6)

St. Jerome:
“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

St Augustine:
For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! Matthew 16:18 The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Just one comment about Brittanica encyclopedia and Ann Landers.

I for one am most interested in the opinion of neutral historians who have studied the primary sources available to them and have arrived at informed opinions.

As scholarly as the encyclopedia Brittanica may or may not be, I do not know whether their list of popes was compiled by historians who studied the primary sources, or whether their list of popes was compiled by non-historian types using the Catholic sources.

As far as Ann Landers goes…she certainly would not have any reason to study the primary sources. It certainly is easiest on this topic to just use the Catholic sources and move on.

Since I asked for (and was provided the name of) a neutral source that accepts the Catholic list of popes, that tells me that at the mininum your list of popes has at least some historical credibility.

The next question would be whether this list of popes is the general consensus of informed neutral historians, or whether there is some debate in the field on this question. However this is not what I asked. I do know that academia and debates go hand in hand.

It is sufficient to me (for now) to know that your list of popes has at a mininum some historical credibility, and therefore it will not be a topic that I will expend precious energy to contest.

See, I can be reasonable.

**You cannot go wrong with the list of popes from the Catholic church. Just for your information; the Catholic church goes through the most rigorous, painstaking,efforts to refute a topic before she declares it a matter of faith. Just imagine when the church is in council about a matter, they have the best minds living to refute and or argue the topic before concluding not to mention it cannot disagree with the teachings of the original apostles, after this scrutiny, it has to go through another scrutiny by the Pope himself and the Holy Spirit, before it can become a matter of belief.

Just a little insight, Peace be with you**