Truck Month Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_cbcc_7_fly_beacon Sixx AM Fire TV with 4k Ultra HD Mother's Day Gifts Amazon Gift Card Offer ctstrph2 ctstrph2 ctstrph2  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Fire, Only $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite UniOrlando ReadyRide Bikes from Diamondback SnS
Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

Can the Apostolic Succession be Proven?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 97 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 9, 2013 8:47:47 PM PST
A customer says:
I think this discussion is important because some say it can't be proven and yet the RCC says it can.

Posted on Mar 9, 2013 10:47:20 PM PST
A customer says:
There is NO documentation of Peter being a Pope

Posted on Mar 9, 2013 10:50:50 PM PST
Jonn Jonzz says:
The Pope said so! And he's Inflammable.

Posted on Mar 9, 2013 11:04:05 PM PST
A customer says:
How true, How true

Posted on Mar 9, 2013 11:05:54 PM PST
Jonn Jonzz says:
It was Pope Peter, followed by Pope John, Pope Paul, Pope George and Pope Ringo. I think those were the first ones.

Posted on Mar 9, 2013 11:06:13 PM PST
A customer says:
I would like to discuss each pope from beginning to present

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 9, 2013 11:06:52 PM PST
A customer says:
I can see that

Posted on Mar 10, 2013 6:20:15 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 10, 2013 7:04:55 AM PDT
A customer says:
I want to see documentation that Peter was ever a Pope from anyone. The Catholic Encyclopedia, published by the Catholic University of America says "But it must be frankly admitted that bias or deficencies in the xources make it impossible to determine in certain cases whether the claimants were popes or anti-popes. This list of popes keeps having to be changed as there is no accurate record of WHO they were. They are just made up and the RCC keeps trying to prove they were ever real

Posted on Mar 10, 2013 7:38:30 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 10, 2013 7:39:28 AM PDT
Ambulocetus says:
There is no proof of apostolic succession. Like every other religious doctrine, it's a matter of definition. The way you decide on your definition determines whom you'll exclude is ignorant, superstitious morons. If you're an atheist, by contrast, you see EVERY definition-decision as the work of ignorant, superstitious morons, and if you're an agnostic, you figure there can be no possible point in such sterile, evidence-free definition-wrangling.

Similar examples include the doctrine of the Trinity (what difference could it possibly make in the concrete religious practices of real Christians?) and the Dual Nature of Christ.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2013 7:41:55 AM PDT
A customer says:
Daniel, I agree that people decide by their own pre-conceived ideas what is "truth" I know the Word trinity is not there but the fact that Jesus, God and the HS, are one is seen in scripture.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2013 7:53:39 AM PDT
Here you are! I couldn't find this thread earlier. Great subject for study Mary, thank you!!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2013 7:58:25 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 10, 2013 8:02:14 AM PDT
An interesting early Bishop of Rome for me is Sylvester, who the Desposyni (of the Holy blood-Jesus' brothers, sisters and nephews coined by Julius Sextus Africanus) went to Rome in order to petition that the church's headquarters be reinstated in her homeland of Jerusalem after the Roman persecutions and fall of Jerusalem. The bishop denied their request of Jesus' family who received ill-treatment and looked down upon by Rome's Bishop.
I believe the early church historian Hegesipus documents the need to show blood relation to Jesus for the very cause that garnered them this treatment. Heritage and bloodline from King David and then Christ were a threat to supreme rulers.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2013 8:15:40 AM PDT
A customer says:
Well, I would like it to be a true list of the Popes and I want the good, the bad and the ugly! I want to hear the good to even though I am accused of believing the bad only.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2013 9:58:44 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Oct 6, 2015 1:19:04 PM PDT]

Posted on Mar 10, 2013 9:59:54 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Oct 6, 2015 1:19:04 PM PDT]

Posted on Mar 10, 2013 10:00:07 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Oct 6, 2015 1:19:04 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2013 10:01:24 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2013 10:01:49 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2013 10:03:06 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2013 10:05:31 AM PDT
Kitties:
I surely hope you were able to C+P this list.
You know, of course that no amount of documentation will convince the vile Catholic-hater Mary Russell of anything.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2013 10:16:06 AM PDT
Absolutely! They found a skeleton buried underneath St. Peter's Basilica in the Christian cemetery dating from the first century A.D. which was missing the feet. Since the easiest way to have removed St. Peter's body from the cross after being crucified upside down would have been to simply chop off his feet, this "proves" that all Popes are descended from St. Peter.

Q.E.D.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2013 10:21:56 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 10, 2013 11:19:12 AM PDT
Pope Honorius I of Old Rome is not listed as are other Pontiff's that were removed from the list, excommunicated and anethmatized by successive Popes.

Pope John I I don't discover on this list either.
Silverius vs. Vigilius: Pope Silverius was forced to resign by Vigilius who became his successor, but the dates don't match up properly. The date of Vigilius' election is listed as March 29, 537, but Silverius' resignation is marked as November 11, 537. Technically there can't be two popes at the same time, so one of them had to be an antipope - but the Annuario Pontificio treats them both as valid popes for the time period in question.

Martin I vs. Eugenius I: Martin I died in exile on September 16, 655, without ever having resigned. The people of Rome weren't sure that he would return and didn't want the Byzantine emperor to impose someone awful on them, so they elected Eugenius I on August 10, 654. Who was the real pope during that year? Martin I was not removed from office by any canonically valid procedure, so Eugenius' election should be treated as invalid - but he's still listed as a legitimate pope.

Pius XII's rule was reinstated by Paul VI thirteen years later, but overturned again by
John

John XII vs. Leo VIII vs. Benedict V: In this very confusing state of affairs, Leo was elected pope on December 4, 963, while his predecessor was still alive - John didn't die until May 14, 964 and he never resigned. Leo, in turn, was still alive when his successor was elected. Benedict's papacy is listed has having started on May 22, 964 (just after the death of John) but Leo didn't die until March 1, 965. So, was Leo a legitimate pope, even though John was still alive? If not, then Benedict was presumably valid, but if he was, then how was Benedict a valid pope? Either Leo or Benedict has to have been an invalid pope (an antipope), but the* Annuario Pontificio doesn't decide one way or the other.

Benedict IX had the most confusing papacy, or the most confusing three papacies, in the history of the Catholic Church. Benedict was forcibly removed from office in 1044 and Sylvester II was elected to take his place. In 1045 Benedict seized control again, and again he was removed - but this time he resigned as well. He was succeeded first by Gregory VI and then by Clement II, after which he returned once again for a few months before being ejected. It's not clear that any of the times Benedict was removed from office was canonically valid, which would mean that the other three mentioned here were antipopes, but the Annuario Pontificio continues to list them as genuine popes.
Pius XII's rule was reinstated by Paul VI thirteen years later, but overturned again by John Paul II (1996).

John XXIII removed from the list of Pope's. One (unspecified) catalogue of popes lists John XVIII as having resigned since it had been specified that Popes could no longer be removed involuntarily.

Felix II (356-357), Boniface VII (974, 984-985), John XVI (997-998), Benedict X (1058-1059) and Alexander V (1409-1410)
had their pontificates revoked. Felix II name has been omitted from the list of Popes. Not sure if Felix III and Felix IV are still on Annuario Pontificio.
Pope-elect Stephen, who died before being consecrated, has not been on the Vatican's official list of popes since 1961, but appears on lists dating from before 1960.[15] The numbering of following popes called Stephen are nowadays given as Pope Stephen II (752-757) to Pope Stephen IX (1057-1058), rather than Stephen III to Stephen X.
When Simon de Brion became pope in 1281, he chose to be called Martin. At that time, Marinus I and Marinus II were mistakenly considered to be Martin II and Martin III respectively, and so, erroneously, Simon de Brion became Pope Martin IV.

Pope Donus II, said to have reigned about 974, never existed.
The status of John XXIII was uncertain for hundreds of years, and was finally settled in 1958 when Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli announced his own name as John XXIII as well this would include him as Pope John XXIV.

Pope John XXIII, served as a Cardinal of the reunited church before his death in 1419 and his remains are found in the Florence Baptistery.

The 2001 edition of the Annuario Pontificio introduced "almost 200 corrections to its existing biographies of the popes, from St Peter to John Paul II".

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2013 10:22:52 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 10, 2013 10:23:40 AM PDT
Benedict XVI renounced his Pontification so should he remain?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2013 10:33:44 AM PDT
A customer says:
thanks Kitties and I would like a bio of each of them please. Good, bad and ugly. I want it all

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2013 10:34:48 AM PDT
A customer says:
I agree with you horse and you know I do but I want this to be a place we can discuss each one and tell what is good and what is bad about them.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Christianity forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1042 28 days ago
Dispensations and the Gospels: 7011 1 minute ago
Catholic-Protestant Discussion Part XXXV 2142 9 minutes ago
My Mob's pub and coffee shop. Part the Eleventh 3474 13 minutes ago
Harvard University test results show that homosexuality is indeed caused by parental neglect --that is from Harvard mind you! 2643 19 minutes ago
moment-of-broken-ness, part 2 9479 30 minutes ago
Six reasons Christianity is a false faith, based on a false god 9477 49 minutes ago
Frederick Engels: "On the History of Early Christianity" 11 52 minutes ago
Sola fide vs Calvinism-lite 1652 1 hour ago
Part 2- the Newer Thread 7351 1 hour ago
The END TIMES of ATHEISM and atheist forum bullies 2 1 hour ago
Transgender Individuals 1455 2 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  15
Total posts:  97
Initial post:  Mar 9, 2013
Latest post:  Mar 21, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions