Petrine succession

[mclees8]

Answering Night

You think I am confused about Patrine succession  This has to do with direct association  with Peter. So I am assuming that when you say patrine succession you are referring to those who were in a direct linage of Peters authority.  This would be for you to say that Peter’s seat  was passed on through Peter to the Bishops of Rome primarily starting with Clement.

What I am saying is that Clement was appointed or ordained by Peter as the bishop of the church at Rome. Please note how I word this ( the church at Rome) Because it was no more special than any other church established at other cities of Asia at that time nor was it to be any more special such as the capital church of Christianity just because Peter  and Paul were there. Even though Clement was ordained by Peter he was not of any more authority than any other bishop ordained by any other apostle. Am I making my self clear now.

Let me clarify some more. In terms of rank  Who is of the highest rank and authority in the US. That would be the President of our government and commander and chief of our armed forces. He is our highest ranking official.

In the same manner the whole papal claim to supreme authority of the church  lies on the supremacy of Peter. The highest ranking head or bishop  of Christ’s church. This is not just of Rome but the whole established church of Christianity You know, the one called Catholic east and west.  Now listen carefully, you speak of petrine succession. From the very first president of the United States, George Washington until this very day we have a succession of presidents being the highest authority. This is established and authentic succession.  An unbroken chain of command. Under him you have the individual heads of state, Senators and Governors. In the same manor if Peter is the head bishop there would be other bishops  that governed the other churches of other diocese that looked to Peter as the supreme head bishop. This is all very Roman catholic of course. This would mean that Peter was above and set apart from even the other apostles so that the other apostles recognized Peter as their commander and chief.  Are we getting the picture?

Something in this is  amiss I do not know who came up with this patrine succsession but I would lean heavily that it was conceived from the papacy after it was secured during the fifth century or after. Another thought comes to mind is the use of the word pope. This term of endearment you say. When was this idea first derived? Is their any document of antiquity giving us a time before the fifth or even before the third century  that the word pope was used. I doubt that the early church fathers even heard that word used of any supreme bishop and surly not Peter. This is a clever idea suggesting that patrene succession means that all the Bishops of Rome starting with the earliest having been ordained by Peter were all popes and recognized by the rest of the Christian church as set apart from all other bishops to create an unbroken chain of supreme authority over other bishops and the churches at large east and west.  What’s wrong with this picture?

Even you tried to downplay this idea. But being corrected by papal bull that the pope had to be recognized as the supreme  authority of the church for one to be even saved. If patrine succession were even true then their would have been no need for the fifth century popes to lie themselves into this office. This fact denies that patrine succession ever existed. Even the fact that the first  tries by the bishops of Rome at this seat was met with opposition from other bishops. Why would they appose something that was already established and recognized as an unbroken chain of popes. That ought make you scratch your head.   


Truth is there was no such thing as patrine succession and their was a void of supreme command for over three hundred years after Peter. Patrine succession was a clever concoction by those who wanted to justify the papacy. 
 
Would there be anything else you did not understand about my post? Was it my use of the Holy Spirit being the gift of God to believers. The third invisible person of the Godhead that Jesus said would live within us and convict us of sin and treachery. The same kind of treachery that the Bishops of Rome used to steal the seat of Peter and not only that but steal the authority of Christ Himself.

[desertknight]

Mike,

You, or Wycliff will always see something sinister in this because you view the Catholic Church as something sinister, potentially the harbinger of the anti-Christ.  There is nothing to be "corrected" by in Unam Sanctum.  I agree with it.  I, being Catholic, view my Church as that which was founded by our Lord, Jesus Christ and His Apostles.  If I were to say, "are you saved through the Body of Christ?", the answer is Yes! Yes!, one hundred times...Yes!  To me, that is exactly what Unam Sanctum is affirming.  There can be no salvation outside of Christ's Church, because there can be no salvation outside of Christ's Body.  Was Peter referred to by any as "papa", i.e. Pope?  I don't know, maybe, possibly...and irrelevant!  Why would that be important?  Have Popes looked or exercised their power and authority differently according to the times of their age? Of course.  It's as unimportant to me as what clothes they wear at Mass.

Is the Church founded by Our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Church of God, the same as the One, Holy , Catholic, and Apostolic Church?  Absolutely!

As far as Petrine Succession, it clearly exist, if not, then one is arguing that somehow, the Christian community in Rome and it's Presbyters and Bishops at some time vanished and then was re-established.  I don't think any scholar believes that.  What is being asserted by many Protestants however, is that before the time of Constantine, there was no Catholic Church.  That is simply a myth, and not one accepted by any serious student of history that I know of.  The Church has certainly changed over the centuries in it's appearance and size and responsibilities, but it is amazingly consistent in it's teachings and beliefs, it's dogma and doctrines.  It is guaranteed through the perpetual priesthood of Christ, handed down through the centuries of the succession of His Bishops.  That is one of the chief draws for me as a Catholic convert.  From the NT, to the Early Church Fathers, down to today, I can read the texts concerning the teachings of my Church and they are the same then as they are today.  The Didache or the writing of Polycarp or Pope Clement to the writings of modern Catholic theologians, are as consistent as the promises of Christ said they would be when He sent the Holy Spirit to dwell with us at Pentecost and promised that it would remain to the "end of time."   If one cannot believe this, then one is not a Christian.  And what happened to the Protestants over time?  Exactly what Scripture said would happen to them when one leaves the flock of Christ and defies the leadership of His anointed shepherds, confusion and division, then divisions from that division.  35,000 different sects of Protestantism and dividing more rapidly as I write.  Hold any, any view, that you want or wish of Christ...and there will be a Protestant sect to cater to your every whim.  No thanks.  You say, "well I don't accept any of them, but I am still a Christian"  Holy Scripture would say no.  Impossible.  It would make a mockery of the ministry of Christ and His work in establishing a very real, very visible, Church, yes led and filled with perfectly mortal, sinful, imperfect, human beings, but His Church, His Body, still the same.

[trifecta]

As far as Petrine Succession, it clearly exist, if not, then one is arguing that somehow, the Christian community in Rome and it's Presbyters and Bishops at some time vanished and then was re-established.  I don't think any scholar believes that. 

More Protestants need to accept this fact.  But if they did . . . The writings of the Early Church Fathers support a succession (from all apostles not just Peter), the real presence of the eucharist, rituals such as fasting, and other practices more prevalent in RCC and Orthodox churches than Protestant ones. 

 It is logically consistent to say--well, these guys went off the rails and went against what Christ taught and therefore the church needed to be reestablished, BUT that presents two big problems:

1)  When Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church, I think he meant it and did not mean for about 50 - 100 years, forcing the church underground, only to come to the surface 1500 years later.

2)  This same "corrupted" establishment church is the same group that approved our 27-book New Testament.   It was not the mythical underground heros who did it.  So, if you reject the church after 100 AD or so, you logically must reject the NT scriptures. 
 

What is being asserted by many Protestants however, is that before the time of Constantine, there was no Catholic Church.  That is simply a myth, and not one accepted by any serious student of history that I know of.

Exactly.  Plus the first complation of the the NT scriptures is in 367 AD.  Well, after the Constantine.    Furthermore, the Nicene Creed happened in the First Ecumenical Council (circa 320), called by Constantine.    Some Protestants reject the Nicene Creed as  document, but none reject its content.

  The Church has certainly changed over the centuries in it's appearance and size and responsibilities, but it is amazingly consistent in it's teachings and beliefs, it's dogma and doctrines.

True.  But the RCC did introduce some strange doctrines such as papal authority, his universal jurisdiction, purgatory, indulgences, changing of the Nicene Creed, absolute divine simplicity.  These are not the beliefs of the early church.  The Orthodox Churches are the church that rejected these and kept to the early faith.

  It is guaranteed through the perpetual priesthood of Christ, handed down through the centuries of the succession of His Bishops.  That is one of the chief draws for me as a Catholic convert.  From the NT, to the Early Church Fathers, down to today, I can read the texts concerning the teachings of my Church and they are the same then as they are today.

Mostly true, but Cardinal Newman (I think) had to introduce the idea of "development of doctrine" to justify the growing role of the Pope (or Bishop of Rome).    Before atlar girls and liturgical dance were prohibited,   now they are good.  Fasting was Wednesday and Friday, then just Friday, now just Fridays during lent.  There have been changes in the RCC over the years, and some of them are not so good.  In contrast, the Orthodox Church has been consistent in doctrine since the beginning.    And we, too, have apostolic succession. 

Thanks for reading

[desertknight]

Thanks for the input my Eastern bro.  I will only take issue with a couple of points.

, purgatory, indulgences, changing of the Nicene Creed, absolute divine simplicity.  These are not the beliefs of the early church.  The Orthodox Churches are the church that rejected these and kept to the early faith.

Purgatory is perfectly consistent within EO doctrines of "Theosis", so much so that the Eastern Catholics, still in full communion with Rome, do not generally use the term "Purgatory", but continue to use the Eastern model of the transitory stage of "theosis" or perfection of the elect as being a "direful condition".  The West developed through the centuries a sometimes complex imagery of purgatory that may not be valid, and is not doctrine or required in belief by the faithful.  

We did insert the "filioque" into the Creed.  Guilty.  An attempt to fight a particular heresy of the time.  Again, Eastern Catholics remain in full communion with Rome without using it, although they must accept the theological justification of it.  When Western Patriarchs, including the most recent Popes, have celebrated in communion with our EO brothers, they have refrained from using it during the Creedo.  Who knows what will happen in the future?  It should prolly be dropped, but they don't ask me.

Indulgences are within the scope of EO doctrine, but are simply not practiced in those terms or thought of in the same way, but clearly, the concept of the Holy Church being composed of the faithful here on earth, as well as the faithful departed; the merits of the sacrifice of our Lord and the intercession of our Saints, along with their prayers and the prayers of all the faithful are beneficial to one's salvation and one's continual "Theosis" after death, to use your guy's terminology, are a shared belief.

doctrines such as papal authority, his universal jurisdiction

The bugga-boo.  You know, and I know, what you know, that I know, that I won't get into.  All I can say is that we pine for you.  As HH John Paul II said, "We must have both of our lungs to breath properly."  We pray for all of you at every Mass and hope for our eventual unity.

There have been changes in the RCC over the years, and some of them are not so good.

Amen to that brudda. 

[trifecta]

Thanks for the input my Eastern bro.  

You are quite welcome, you spiritual Westerner. (Looked but failed to find smiley emoticon with a Western theme).

Purgatory is perfectly consistent within EO doctrines of "Theosis", so much so that the Eastern Catholics, still in full communion with Rome, do not generally use the term "Purgatory", but continue to use the Eastern model of the transitory stage of "theosis" or perfection of the elect as being a "direful condition".

Purgatory is a very specific and defined doctrine.  We don't buy it.  If we did, we would have joined you again at the Council of Florence (I think) in the 15th century.  We do leave open the possibility of advancement toward theosis after death, but even that is controversial in our church.

Still, I'm impressed you have an understanding of what theosis is!
 

We did insert the "filioque" into the Creed.  Guilty.  An attempt to fight a particular heresy of the time.  Again, Eastern Catholics remain in full communion with Rome without using it, although they must accept the theological justification of it.  When Western Patriarchs, including the most recent Popes, have celebrated in communion with our EO brothers, they have refrained from using it during the Creedo.  Who knows what will happen in the future?  It should prolly be dropped, but they don't ask me.

Thanks for admitting this.   It's amazing what an effect three little words can have.

Indulgences are within the scope of EO doctrine, but are simply not practiced in those terms or thought of in the same way,

We have made mistakes in history, but indulgences is not one of them.

but clearly, the concept of the Holy Church being composed of the faithful here on earth, as well as the faithful departed; the merits of the sacrifice of our Lord and the intercession of our Saints, along with their prayers and the prayers of all the faithful are beneficial to one's salvation and one's continual "Theosis" after death, to use your guy's terminology, are a shared belief.

agreed  

The bugga-boo.  You know, and I know, what you know, that I know, that I won't get into.  All I can say is that we pine for you.  As HH John Paul II said, "We must have both of our lungs to breath properly."  We pray for all of you at every Mass and hope for our eventual unity.

I have noticed this in the liturgy, but I do appreciate it.  Do you say it in the "Lord, hear our prayer" part?     Nevertheless, I too pray for the unity of our churches.  

Blessings to you!

[desertknight]

Do you say it in the "Lord, hear our prayer" part?

No, it's done before that, during what is called "the collect", during the prayers just preceding the Liturgy of the Body, (Holy Eucharist), in addition, anytime we refer to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, or the Whole Church, or Christ's Church, etc.;  we are including you guys as well.  Theologically with us, (I know it differs among some in the East.), but we are considered in schism, but still of one faith.  There used to be some possibility of this with some of the Protestants, Anglicans for example, but in the battering that they, and we took during the modern age, that is sadly, no longer possible with any of them.  

This is from a Catholic site, just so I don't muck-up the theology...

(The Eastern Orthodox Churches), are referred to by the Catholic Church as "true particular Churches" with valid sacraments. This status as "true particular Church" is derived from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. Thus, while the Catholic Church believes that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, Orthodox sacraments are valid.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

As far as Petrine Succession, it clearly exist, if not, then one is arguing that somehow, the Christian community in Rome and it's Presbyters and Bishops at some time vanished and then was re-established.  I don't think any scholar believes that.

Really?  haven't you studied the Avignon papacy?  never heard the word antipope ? 

It sort of puts the idea of succession in a new light.  And that's not even to speak of the accepted popes who also happened to excommunicate other accepted popes.  Or to mention the times where a legitimate successor to Peter's chair behaved in a manner such that the fruits test comes back negative.  I call the entire 10th century as a witness.

How about the time when the popes were made by the fueding Italian aristocracies, who also filled majority of the college of cardinals simultaneously?  Or when the wholly Roman emperor controlled the papacy?  Or the German monarch?  How about the times when there was no pope for a year because of in-fighting?  What about the the time the cardinals selected a senile old man so that they could manipulate him?  Or the pope who allowed his mistress to run things before the townfolk chased him out of town.

If you think the papacy forms an unbroken line...well, you need to open your eyes, or maybe just a history book.

[desertknight]

If you think the papacy forms an unbroken line...well, you need to open your eyes, or maybe just a history book.

I have many and you should really check your own links before posting them, saying things like, "It sort of puts the idea of succession in a new light.", may sound titillating, but is a poor argument.  Your own links verify that whether dissidents raised up  so called anti-Popes, or Popes resided in Avignon, or the Medici's put one in Peter's chair, it had, and has, no being on the legitimacy of the Bishop of Rome, his status as Pope, or the legitimacy of the priesthood.  You have also demonstrated, in two separate threads now, which is why I bring it up, a lack of the Catholic understanding of excommunication.  it does not kick someone out of being Christian.  It does not kick someone out of the Church as such.  It cannot rescind one's priesthood.  It is not intended to be permanent.  It is a "shunning" of that person from the faithful.  It cuts them off from the Sacraments until they repent.  It forbids priest and Bishops from celebrating those Sacraments while so excommunicated.  That's it.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

If you think the papacy forms an unbroken line...well, you need to open your eyes, or maybe just a history book.

Your own links verify that whether dissidents raised up  so called anti-Popes...

You've missed the whole definition of an anti-pope.  An anti-pope is a claimant on on See whose claim is to some extent legitimized by his ordination by acting bishops/cardinals present in those positions.  They are defined as non-official largely because there were two Papas sitting in different places at the same time, which ain't allowed.

...or Popes resided in Avignon

Tell me, how can one be a legitimate bishop of Rome, without ever stepping foot in Rome?

...or the Medici's put one in Peter's chair, it had, and has, no being on the legitimacy of the Bishop of Rome, his status as Pope, or the legitimacy of the priesthood.

Really?  When the entire presbytery of the See is compromised to the extent that one can buy or blackmail a candidate into "Peter's chair," you don't see a discontinuation, a "disappearance" as you said, of the church there?

You have also demonstrated, in two separate threads now, which is why I bring it up, a lack of the Catholic understanding of excommunication.  it does not kick someone out of being Christian.  It does not kick someone out of the Church as such.  It cannot rescind one's priesthood.  It is not intended to be permanent.  It is a "shunning" of that person from the faithful.  It cuts them off from the Sacraments until they repent.  It forbids priest and Bishops from celebrating those Sacraments while so excommunicated.  That's it.

I'll happily take the correction if I'm wrong, but AFAIK dying while excommunicated precludes salvation, does it not?  I mean, since the sacrament of confession is not available and the person is in mortal sin, how doesn't it?  And, that cutting off isn't simply until they repent, is it?  It's until the excommunication is rescinded, which has often been never.  And what about posthumous excommunications?  I mean, how does that work?  How could that possibly be intended to be impermanent?

[desertknight]

An anti-pope is a claimant on on See whose claim is to some extent legitimized by his ordination by acting bishops/cardinals present in those positions.  They are defined as non-official largely because there were two Papas sitting in different places at the same time, which ain't allowed.

It is you who do not understand.  If an anti-pope is elected by a significant number of dissidents, that does not de-legitimize, the Petrine Succession.  It may make it cloudy as to who is in line, but in terms of legitimacy, it matters not.  It's similar as to when we had a discussion as to which came second or third in the rolls of the See of Antioch.  I don't think that you get that it is not the person, handing the office off to the next guy in line, that makes for the "Succession".  Please read that again, so you get the importance of that.  I really don't know if Linus was second or third or if Clement was third or forth as the Bishop of Rome.  It doesn't matter in the end.  It has little to do with the validity of Succession.  Validity is conveyed by whether that person, no matter where they were in line, was validly ordained or consecrated into that position, i.e., by those or someone who has the proper authority to do so.  It is the bold end of that last sentence that is key.  Protestants can use the exact form of ordination as Catholics or Orthodox, but all who they ordain, and who those in turn ordain, are completely invalid.  Scripture is crystal clear on this.  This is what you do not seem to understand about Succession, Petrine or Apostolic.  This is why I keep asking you, "Where do Protestants get their authority?"  It is because Holy Scripture makes abundantly clear that the only ones authorized to bequeath authority in the Church are those who have themselves been properly ordained.  This is why even Paul, called directly by Christ, went to Jerusalem to be ordained.  He ordained Timothy as Bishop.  Timothy ordains Presbyters in various cities.  It is the only valid model.  This is why the visible Church, the Apostolic Succession and the united priesthood with Christ has been deemed so vital by the Holy Christian Church for two thousand years, whether Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic.  It simply cannot be gotten around in the NT, which is where I began to have serious doubts about the intellectual defensibility of Protestantism during my youth.  That the anti-Popes may ordain many Bishops or Presbyters is possible.  It effects nothing.  Their ordinations are still, if properly done, valid.  Hence the Eastern Orthodox Succession is still valid with us.  The actions of their Bishops and priests may be illicit, however.  Clear?, or more clear?

Tell me, how can one be a legitimate bishop of Rome, without ever stepping foot in Rome?

The same way that when President Johnson was sworn in in Texas...he was validly the President.  FYI; The Pope, who by virtue of being the Bishop of Rome, is the Pope, has not lived in Rome since 1929.  He not only does not live in Rome, he does not even live in Italy.  He resides in the State of Vatican City.  A completely sovereign and independent country from Italy.

Really?  When the entire presbytery of the See is compromised to the extent that one can buy or blackmail a candidate into "Peter's chair," you don't see a discontinuation, a "disappearance" as you said, of the church there?

If it did, then our Lord's promises about His Church were lies.  Absolutely not!  This is the major point you Protestants do not get about the Church.  The priesthood is sacrosanct, as Christ promised us.  His Church is his Body, and impervious to the sins of man in regards to faith and morals, i.e., the dogma, doctrines, teachings and Sacramental validity of the Church.  Why stop at the Medici's?  Every single, Bishop, Priest, Deacon, and Christian, on the face of this earth, since Peter denied Christ three times, has been, and will be, a terribly flawed and bastard sinner, who deserves no salvation...and yet it is there for the asking, nevertheless.

I'll happily take the correction if I'm wrong, but AFAIK dying while excommunicated precludes salvation, does it not?  

Assuming we know the full mind of God on the subject of that person, then yes, it does, which is why I agree with you, that although it is a bit more complicated than we are putting here, if one dies in an unrepentant state of mortal sin, and one is excommunicated, then off to the nether regions of Hell doth one go.  That is why it is considered a "corrective" and temporary measure requiring a particular grave situation.  I have never heard of it being used personally, although if one commits abortion willingly, you could be excommunicated automatically in some Dioceses that I have heard of.  

[mclees8]

Mike,

You, or Wycliff will always see something sinister in this because you view the Catholic Church as something sinister, potentially the harbinger of the anti-Christ.  There is nothing to be "corrected" by in Unam Sanctum.  I agree with it.  I, being Catholic, view my Church as that which was founded by our Lord, Jesus Christ and His Apostles.  If I were to say, "are you saved through the Body of Christ?", the answer is Yes! Yes!, one hundred times...Yes!  To me, that is exactly what Unam Sanctum is affirming.  There can be no salvation outside of Christ's Church, because there can be no salvation outside of Christ's Body.  Was Peter referred to by any as "papa", i.e. Pope?  I don't know, maybe, possibly...and irrelevant!  Why would that be important?  Have Popes looked or exercised their power and authority differently according to the times of their age? Of course.  It's as unimportant to me as what clothes they wear at Mass.

Is the Church founded by Our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Church of God, the same as the One, Holy , Catholic, and Apostolic Church?  Absolutely!

As far as Petrine Succession, it clearly exist, if not, then one is arguing that somehow, the Christian community in Rome and it's Presbyters and Bishops at some time vanished and then was re-established.  I don't think any scholar believes that.  What is being asserted by many Protestants however, is that before the time of Constantine, there was no Catholic Church.  That is simply a myth, and not one accepted by any serious student of history that I know of.  The Church has certainly changed over the centuries in it's appearance and size and responsibilities, but it is amazingly consistent in it's teachings and beliefs, it's dogma and doctrines.  It is guaranteed through the perpetual priesthood of Christ, handed down through the centuries of the succession of His Bishops.  That is one of the chief draws for me as a Catholic convert.  From the NT, to the Early Church Fathers, down to today, I can read the texts concerning the teachings of my Church and they are the same then as they are today.  The Didache or the writing of Polycarp or Pope Clement to the writings of modern Catholic theologians, are as consistent as the promises of Christ said they would be when He sent the Holy Spirit to dwell with us at Pentecost and promised that it would remain to the "end of time."   If one cannot believe this, then one is not a Christian.  And what happened to the Protestants over time?  Exactly what Scripture said would happen to them when one leaves the flock of Christ and defies the leadership of His anointed shepherds, confusion and division, then divisions from that division.  35,000 different sects of Protestantism and dividing more rapidly as I write.  Hold any, any view, that you want or wish of Christ...and there will be a Protestant sect to cater to your every whim.  No thanks.  You say, "well I don't accept any of them, but I am still a Christian"  Holy Scripture would say no.  Impossible.  It would make a mockery of the ministry of Christ and His work in establishing a very real, very visible, Church, yes led and filled with perfectly mortal, sinful, imperfect, human beings, but His Church, His Body, still the same.

You are truly a wonder. Why do you pretend to be ignorant. Surely you are not daft are you? I do not know how to make it anymore understandable than I already have and yet you come back with things like the presbyters disappearing and re appearing. I never said anything like that. What I said was there was never any patrine succession of Peters seat. Clement was not pope Clement,  but Bishop Clement of the church at Rome and so it was with every other bishop overseer after him right on up to the fifth century. They were just bishops like all the other bishops that were ordained to be overseers. Peter did not pass on his seat to anyone. This did not make any presbyter disappear for three hundred years.  Let me reiterate my point one more time.


If patrine succession were even true then their would have been no need for the fifth century popes to lie themselves into this office. This fact denies that patrine succession ever existed. Even the fact that the first  tries by the bishops of Rome at this seat was met with opposition from other bishops. Why would they appose something that was already established and recognized as an unbroken chain of popes? That ought make you scratch your head.   

You like to lean on facts and documented evidences. These points are facts, not fairy tales. I will tell you whats a fairy tale. Patrine succession
   

You also amaze me at how you fluff off the corruptions of the leadership as the mere sinful weaknesses of being human. Lust for power and corruptions are not just simple sinfull weaknesses of the flesh. Personal ambition always brings with it deceptions and corruption, born from within. When they are recognized and exposed they must be repented of. The papacy was born of all this and rained in all this for 1000 years with out repentance from their corruptions which was  the very cause for the Reformation. An old saying is, “ what goes around comes around“. So don’t point the evil finger at Protestants and all their denominations. Look first to the source, and don’t just simply call it human failure.   This kind of corruption is not simples weakness.

[desertknight]

Why would they appose something that was already established and recognized as an unbroken chain of popes? That ought make you scratch your head.  

It ought to make you scratch yours that if this were the case, no real break occurred in Christendom for over 1,000 years!  Oh, I know, I know...it was that evil Catholic Church that just kept people enslaved that long, so that's why there was no break from the Pope until then....  You ask me to scratch mine, but what I just wrote wont give you a seconds pause.  OK, back to history then...

Irenaeus:
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).


Tertullian :
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).


Origen :
"if we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

This is what, Dr. John Meyendorff, a well known non-Catholic professor of Orthodox history says on the subject.

"A very clear patristic tradition sees the succession of Peter in the episcopal ministry. The doctrine of St Cyprian of Carthage on the “See of Peter

[mclees8]

Why would they appose something that was already established and recognized as an unbroken chain of popes? That ought make you scratch your head.  

It ought to make you scratch yours that if this were the case, no real break occurred in Christendom for over 1,000 years!  Oh, I know, I know...it was that evil Catholic Church that just kept people enslaved that long, so that's why there was no break from the Pope until then....  You ask me to scratch mine, but what I just wrote wont give you a seconds pause.  OK, back to history then...

Irenaeus:
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).


Tertullian :
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).


Origen :
"if we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

This is what, Dr. John Meyendorff, a well known non-Catholic professor of Orthodox history says on the subject.

"A very clear patristic tradition sees the succession of Peter in the episcopal ministry. The doctrine of St Cyprian of Carthage on the “See of Peter

[Mrs Mac]

There is no such thing as  Petrine Succession" Jesus said He would build HIS church on this fact

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

The claim put forth in the post that we are saved through the body of Christ is false. We are saved by the blood of Christ and the church belongs to no man but the son of Man who is the Head and without an appointed vicar on earth.

The church, (made up of those who abide in Christ) is alive and well.  The heretical teachings of  the Catholic religion and its claim to being the one and only true church have not prevailed against the truth of the Scriptures which has taught us that we are saved by grace and grace alone.

I am constantly amazed, in fact mentioned it to hubby the other day how well the church has survived through the years of darkness. But then our Lord said the gates of Hell would not prevail against it and they never will.

[desertknight]

There is no such thing as  Petrine Succession" Jesus said He would build HIS church on this fact

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Matt. 16:18-19  "And so I say to you, you are Peter, ("Kephas", the Rock), and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it.  I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The claim put forth in the post that we are saved through the body of Christ is false.

Eph. 4:6, 15-16  "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."  "Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body's growth and builds itself up in love."  Luke 22:19  " "This is my body, which will be given up for you;"

without an appointed vicar on earth.

John 20:21-23  "(Jesus) said to them, (Apostles), again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."  And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit.  Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."  "1 Thess. 5:12  "We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you".  

I am constantly amazed, in fact mentioned it to hubby the other day how well the church has survived through the years of darkness. But then our Lord said the gates of Hell would not prevail against it and they never will.

All 35,000+ denominations of them.  From Charles Taze Russell to Joseph Smith.  From Benny Hinn to Joel Osteen.  Which one to pick from?  

2 Tim. 4:3  "For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers."