M
Mannyfit75
Guest
You are claiming the Eastern Orthodox has conflicting list with the Pope?
Protestants lacks the respect of Christian history compared to Eastern Orthodox and Catholics.
- Status
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
No, I am claiming, because it is true, that Rome’s list is conjecture and that “Tradition” gave many conflicting lists of Popes.
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).
It is like me believing that we would have conflicting lists of Presidents. The old “Popes were in hiding” does not square with history. When is the first person to suggest that?
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I look it up Cletus and Anacletus are the same person.
The two authorities presuppose the following list: (1) Peter, xxv; (2) Linus, xii; (3) Anencletus [Cletus], xii; (4) Clement, ix; (5) Evarestus, viii; (6) Alexander, x; (7) Sixtus, x; (8) Telesophorus, xi; (9) Hyginus, iv; (10) Pius, xv; (11) Anicetus, xi;, (12) Soter, viii; (13) Eleutherius, xv; (14) Victor, x; (15) Zephyrinus, xviii; (16) Callistus, v; (17) Urban, viii; (18) Pontian, v (Harnack, “Chronologie”, I, 152).
St. Cletus
This name is only another form for Anacletus, the second successor of St. Peter. It is true that the Liberian Catalogue, a fourth-century list of popes, so called because it ends with Pope Liberius (d. 366), contains both names, as if they were different persons. But this is an error, owing evidently to the existence of two forms of the same name, one an abbreviation of the other. In the aforesaid catalogue the papal succession is: Petrus, Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus. This catalogue, however, is the only authority previous to the sixth century (Liber Pontificalis) for distinguishing two popes under the names of Cletus and Anacletus.
The “Carmen adv. Marcionem” is of the latter half of the fourth century, and its papal list probably depends on the Liberian Catalogue. The “Martyrologium Hieronymianum” (q.v.) mentions both “Aninclitus” and “Clitus” (23 and 31 December), but on each occasion these names are found in a list of popes; hence the days mentioned cannot be looked on as specially consecrated to these two persons. Apart from these lists, all other ancient papal lists, from the second to the fourth century, give as follows the immediate succession of St. Peter: Linos, Anegkletos, Klemes (Linus, Anencletus, Clemens), and this succession is certainly the right one. It is that found in St. Iren浳 and in the chronicles of the second and third centuries. Both Africa and the Orient adhered faithfully to this list, which is also given in the very ancient Roman Canon of the Mass, except that in the latter Cletus is the form used, and the same occurs in St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, Rufinus, and in many fifth- and sixth-century lists. This second successor of St. Peter governed the Roman Church from about 76 to about 88. The “Liber Pontificalis” says that his father was Emelianus and that Cletus was a Roman by birth, and belonged to the quarter known as the Vicus Patrici. It also tells us that he ordained twenty-five priests, and was buried in Vaticano near the body of St. Peter.
newadvent.org/cathen/04054a.htm
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I suggest looking at the most authoritize list of the Pope called the Annuario Pontificio.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
T
Teflon93
Guest
Papal lists are a bit tricky because of the terrible persecutions of the Church at various points in its early history and the consequent difficulties in maintaining such records when one manifestly did not want the authorities to know who was in charge.
This is of course why Peter claimed to by in Babylon, the code word for Rome.
Our bishop told us during RCIA it is common practice for bishops when anointed to have hands laid on them from a variety of bishops. This is to preserve apostolic succession, the theory of course being any one is sufficient to trace back to Peter.
My bishop was anointed by Pope John Paul II, so he can be quite sure of his apostolic succession.
Two more things ought be said:
Let me prove my point this way: Kings of England—go!
This is of course why Peter claimed to by in Babylon, the code word for Rome.
Our bishop told us during RCIA it is common practice for bishops when anointed to have hands laid on them from a variety of bishops. This is to preserve apostolic succession, the theory of course being any one is sufficient to trace back to Peter.
My bishop was anointed by Pope John Paul II, so he can be quite sure of his apostolic succession.
Two more things ought be said:
- Written history is only part of the story, and a small one prior to the printing press for rather obvious reasons.
- As the recovery of the Qumran scrolls shows, and indeed, as the discovery of various “lost” ancient texts has shown, oral tradition stands up pretty well for ancient cultures. I can’t remember much without a piece of paper, but Winston Churchill was able to memorize The Iliad, and recall it quite late into life, much as Homer and his successors must have done.
Let me prove my point this way: Kings of England—go!
P
Pons
Guest
If there were ever more than one bishop, they would have had some hierarchy among themselves, even if it was not apparent from their titles. Take the Twelve Apostles, for example - does anyone dispute that Peter was the leading member of the Twelve?
D
Deconi
Guest
** Personally, I think when they read the “ECFs” in the hisotry of Christianity, they come to a screeching halt when they realise it actually means “Early Catholic Fathers”!!
Then, out of pride, of sorts, attempts are made to find another possible explanation!
Hence…;
They were not unanimous
The ECFs were not Catholics
The Church wasn’t Catholic
The Papacy had sinners
You’re not united
Thanks for The Bible but The Canon is in question
The Councils were not Catholic councils
The Councils contradict what Catholics say
The Pope is not the only bishop of Rome
Rome is not the authority for Christians
Peter was not the Pope
Peter is not the Vicar of Christ
Peter should have been married
Peter is a stone
Peter is the rock but not The Rock
Peter has no keys
Jesus speaks to me personally
If He’s saying something different to you, He’s wrong because you’re wrong!
etc… etc… et cetera!
**
Then, out of pride, of sorts, attempts are made to find another possible explanation!
Hence…;
They were not unanimous
The ECFs were not Catholics
The Church wasn’t Catholic
The Papacy had sinners
You’re not united
Thanks for The Bible but The Canon is in question
The Councils were not Catholic councils
The Councils contradict what Catholics say
The Pope is not the only bishop of Rome
Rome is not the authority for Christians
Peter was not the Pope
Peter is not the Vicar of Christ
Peter should have been married
Peter is a stone
Peter is the rock but not The Rock
Peter has no keys
Jesus speaks to me personally
If He’s saying something different to you, He’s wrong because you’re wrong!
etc… etc… et cetera!
**
S
Steadfast
Guest
I appreciate your ((NOT ALL))…
You’re right, it seems like the vast majority of Evangelicals in the US tend to see nothing much as having happened between Pentecost and the day they were baptized.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I rather not lump sum all of them of the same boat. Scott Hahn, Alex Jones, and others before they converted had a lot of study of the ECF… and I am also aware there are other Protestant historians who recognizes the ECF and that agree that the Early Church was indeed One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Yet these Protestant historians remain Protestant and maintain an unbias view of Christian history. They earn my deepest respect.
A
AllSaints1631
Guest
It would appear to me that you could put Anglicans in there with Catholics and Orthodox Christians. They too follow the Gregorian kalender, recognize the Sacrements and the Communion of Saints. They practice most all of those things that most other Protestants sneer at.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I could but their sacraments are invalid.
Apostolicae Curae is the title of a papal bull, issued in 1896 by Pope Leo XIII, declaring all Anglican Holy Orders **“absolutely null and utterly void”. **
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
So they don’t respect Christian history because they don’t have valid sacraments? Is the thread about respecting history or something else?
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Point taken they **do respect **history. Henry Newman was Anglican before he was Catholic and was very deep in history. I apologize. Since this isn’t about Holy Orders, I will put that asside. I do think they have respect for history.
G
GKC
Guest
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
T
Teflon93
Guest
One caveat is that the American side of the Anglican Union shows far less respect for history and tradition than her non-American counterparts, which is fuel for the current schism.
I would certainly say that Anglicans in general have a deep respect for both, insofar as generalities hold. The Anglican liturgy tends to bear this out.
A
AllSaints1631
Guest
Absolutely.
S
Steadfast
Guest
But some of the most doctrinally liberal Anglicans (and Lutherans for that matter) are the most resolutely old-fashioned when it comes to liturgical forms.
Back in the 70’s “guitar masses” may have been all the rage, but these days a return to rubric and form seems to be the model.
What appears to be important is that, whatever your belief, the most significant thing is to look like an Anglican (or a Lutheran) at worship.
Back in the 70’s “guitar masses” may have been all the rage, but these days a return to rubric and form seems to be the model.
What appears to be important is that, whatever your belief, the most significant thing is to look like an Anglican (or a Lutheran) at worship.
- Status