2007-11-20 04:31:12 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
why fabricate something for 2,000 yrs, and how would you find people to go along with it for that length of time. No history shows the popes from st peter to the present pope and the yr they held that office.
2007-11-20 04:38:42 · update #1
why fabricate something for 2,000 yrs, and how would you find people to go along with it for that length of time. No history shows the popes from st peter to the present pope and the yr they held that office.
2007-11-20 04:38:48 · update #2
Such silly answers. "Dark conspiracies in the Vatican." "No Popes ever." "Total fabrications."
The succession of Popes is a matter of well established historical records:
+ St. Peter (32-67)
+ St. Linus (67-76)
+ St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
+ St. Clement I (88-97)
+ St. Evaristus (97-105)
+ St. Alexander I (105-115)
+ St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
+ St. Telesphorus (125-136)
+ St. Hyginus (136-140)
+ St. Pius I (140-155)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
The web link provides a brief biography of each of the popes, including the primary sources from which we know about each papacy.
For example, the entry for Pope St. Linus:
All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, "De vir. ill.", xv). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his II Timothy 4:21.
The bizarre reaction of those who do not belong to the one original Church suggests your simple question exposed a raw nerve. Catholics' ability to document this succession of Popes shows that Catholic ties to Jesus and the Twelve are genuine.
In contrast are impossible claims, such as the LDS claim that John the Baptist (who died about 30 AD) appointed Joseph Smith, who was born in 1805.
Conclusion: Christ authorized and empowered the original catholic-orthodox Church. He appointed the first leader in a succession of leaders that continues to this day.
Cheers,
Bruce
2007-11-20 07:37:20 · answer #1 · answered by Bruce 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Succession from Saint Peter does no longer propose it particularly is impossible for the guy to dedicate an errors. Apostolic Succession has an extremely precise which means and could no longer be mixed up with diverse subjects. =-=-=-=-=-=-=- the guy holds the placement of labor, the placement of labor is respected in spite of if the guy is nicely worth or no longer. basically as a King _is_ the country. The Pope _is_ Christendom. we ought to basically as definitely say his majesty. talking in third guy or woman is in many cases respectul and the magesty/holiness of the pope is the holiness of the St. Paul's Mystical physique of Christ.
2016-10-17 12:38:34 · answer #2 · answered by henshaw 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Irenaeus listed the first 14 Popes in "Against Heresies", 3:3:3, 180 AD, and the rest to this day have been documented also
2007-11-20 04:37:53 · answer #3 · answered by SpiritRoaming 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
St. Peter was married. When he died, his wife took over the non-profit Church until one of Peter's sons became the new Pope?
Other?
2007-11-20 04:38:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The Catholic church was not created until 305 a.d.. Thirty men had got together for a meeting and 29 of them decided to start a new religion that "would not obey all Jesus had ordered".
I do not know at what time they made up their fake list of earlier popes.
If you read Matthew 5:17 to 20 you will read that Jesus said he was not here to start a new religion, but to fix the Jewish one.
Because of all the truth in the Bible is why the Catholic church dose not want its people to read it, for then all would know it dose not teach the whole truth. Just favorite lines.
2007-11-20 04:43:37 · answer #5 · answered by geessewereabove 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
frankly i donot know.however i do know that in the secret recesses of Rome archives there are so many things that are not to the knowledge of all of us including the popes and cardinals and down the line.I hope to see the coming of the day when there is this freedom to information act or thereabout that we can have access to those ancient and new
archives.
2007-11-20 04:42:12 · answer #6 · answered by FriendlyLionLeo 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Peter was not a pope and would have been horifide at the idea.
2007-11-20 04:41:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I think their tradition holds that Linus was the 2nd pope.
Ath
2007-11-20 04:34:26 · answer #8 · answered by athanasius was right 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The entire history of popes prior to the 3rd century is an after the fact fabrication.
2007-11-20 04:34:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 6⤋
bruce is too awesome isnt he?
2007-11-20 08:52:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋