The Catholic claims that they can literaly trace their Bishops all the way back to the apostles of Christ in an unbroken line of succesion. They say it's all on written documents as well. Is this true?

-- Brian (Noemail@123.com), January 08, 2005

Answers

Absolutely true, Brian! For the early episcopal succession, you can trace it in Eusebius (a church historian who lived c. 300 A.D.), who in turn got the lists of bishops from folks like Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (c. 180 A.D.), Hegisippus, Papias of Hierapolis, etc. I myself checked this out years ago, and it proved to be true.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 08, 2005.

Michael

What resources did you use to do this. Catholichierarchy.com only goes back a few hundred years.

-- Hugh (hugh@inspired.com), January 10, 2005.

Brian, Here are a few great quotes from St. Augustine in this regard.

"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine,Psalm against the Party of Donatus,18(A.D. 393),in GCC,51

"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine,Against the Letter of Mani,5(A.D. 395),in GCC,78

"Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown,so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished" Augustine,To Glorius et.al,Epistle 43:7(A.D. 397),in NPNF1,I:278

"If the lineal succession of bishops is to be considered with how much more benefit to the Church do we reckon from Peter himself,to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock I will build my church,and the gates of hell shall not conquer it!' For to Peter succeeded Linus,Clement...Damsus,Sircius,Anastasius. In this order of sucession no Donatist bishop is too be found." Augustine,To Generosus,Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400),in GILES,180-181

"The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today." Augustine,Against the Letters of Petillian,2:51(A.D. 402),in GCC,78

***********

The above quotes were taken from here http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/primacy.htm

Many more quotes concerning this matter and volumes of other quotes on various Catholic issues, see the above link.

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 11, 2005.

The Catholic encyclopedia (there's a link on the forum) has a list of popes from day one.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 11, 2005.

Don't forget the keys to the kingdom Matthew.

We've been down this road before. Recommend you check out theis old thread. There are others.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 12, 2005.

Or the Shepherd's Mantle, Matthew, given ONLY to Peter BY JESUS! Whoops just a little detail, right? Another scripture to be thrown in the "this-supports-Catholocism-so-I-must-throw-it-out" trashcan!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 12, 2005.

Jesus told the apostle Simon, and no-one else, "THOU art Rock". Could this be any clearer? He didn't say "Simon, your confession of faith is Rock". He said "THOU!" - "YOU!" - And then immediately conferred upon Simon, now know as "Simon Peter" - "Simon the Rock" - and no-one else, the keys to His kingdom, keys being the universally recognized symbol of supreme AUTHORITY. It is sad enough when people reject the true authority Christ gave us - His Church - and attempt to force upon the Church's book an authority which belongs to the Church alone. But it is even sadder when they try to twist the straightforward words of Scripture to fit the new traditions of men their human founders have imposed upon them.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 12, 2005.

The problem is that you are using an English translation. If you look in any other translation you will see that the word Jesus used for rock and the name He gave to Simon are different. The word Jesus called Simon is a small movable stone, the word He used for the foundation of the church is a massive stone. Jesus said that the massive stone was the foundation of the church which was faith in Him, and the small stones are the people that make up the church. Also if Peter was the first pope, why does he not know this himself? and why don't the other apostles realize this? The keys are given to everyone who is a member of the church. Jesus is the Door, and those who have faith in him have the key.

-- Matthew (mattprom1982@hotmail.com), January 12, 2005.

Matthew, you've cribbed that so-called rebuttal from some anti-catholic tract. But it's not the truth. ROCK is what Jesus calls him. Peter is still that rock; and your ''massive stone'' has nothing to do with the faith; it's still called faith.

Christ made no mention of a massive stone, did He? But He did speak of his Church. He spoke often of faith; and never said his Church would be built on that. In fact, faith is not very massive, or quite like Rock.

For instance, your faith is being frittered away. It's built on sand. Many who profess faith in Jesus live in gross error. What's a Church built on error worth to Christ?

We call your attention to the errors of so many who said they had faith: Rev Jim Jones, who gave poisoned Kool Aid to his congregation; and David Koresh, the ''minister'' who thought he was teaching the faith to his followers the Branch Davidians of Waco, Texas? He read the Bible to them, while he had sexual relations with several women in his ''flock''-- before all of them were killed. Faith like that is a ''massive stone''--?

You can't be serious. But on the other hand, see the Catholic Church: built on Rock; with Peter who is the Vicar of Christ; a Rock. The Catholic Church is standing through storms and crisis and the evil of this world; for almost 2,000 years. She weathered this all; and sin and the attacks of Satan; while bringing millions of souls to Christ. Year after year, century after century. She is unshaken and faithful to His TRUTH, the Holy Gospel. Built on Rock to last forever. Just Look; don't take our word.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2005.

Matthew,

The problem is that your analysis of the Greek is simply wrong. First, Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic. Christ renamed Simon to Cepha. The Greek is a translation of the Aramaic word for stone.

Second, petra/petros is the same word, not different words. One is a feminine form and the other a masculine form of the word "rock". Peter is a man, so it's obvious the masculine form should be used for him in the Greek text. If the Greek text really wanted to indicate Peter as a small rock, it would have used the Greek word for small rock, lithos instead of petros. Besides, there are other areas in the NT where Peter is clearly called Cephas (John 1:42, 1 Cor, Gal) which means rock or stone, not pebble.

Also, Scripture clearly shows that Jesus gave the keys to Peter, not any other apostle or disciple.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 12, 2005.

Excellent points, Andy. You've done Matthew a great favor, opening his eyes to the errors he was repeating.

Do you suppose he'll appreciate it?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 12, 2005.

I'm not sure I opened his eyes, if his heart is hardened. I can only hope they're opened by the Spirit of Truth, Eugene. Even if his eyes aren't opened, you never know who else may be lurking and has the same question.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 13, 2005.

How can you say my heart is hardened? You don't know me at all. My eyes are open, I actually am interested in learning the truth. It just doesn't make any sense that Jesus would give a man authority of His Church, especially a man who denied him three times. Also I don't understand how exactly you get that interpretation. Jesus says "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church." He doesn't say "upon you I will build my Church." Even if Jesus did give Peter the authority to His Church, where does Jesus say that Peter can give the authority to someone else?

Another question I have is why does the Catholic Church have priests and popes if Jesus said "But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all you are brethren. And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters; for one is you master, Christ."

-- Matthew (mattprom1982@hotmail.com), January 13, 2005.

Gee Matt you must have a hell of a job finding an acceptable Father's Day card that doesn't mention the word "father". Obviously you can't go to the US Masters. Or meet with any academic types who have a Master's degree! You twist our Savior's words into unintentionally ludicrous parodies. Or maybe it is intentional and you just want to mock our Savior.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 13, 2005.

Mathew

How can you say my heart is hardened? You don't know me at all. My eyes are open, I actually am interested in learning the truth.

i know from the ignorant misinformation you've posted here that you are not KNOWLEDGEABLE about the catholic church. the hardened heart remains to be seen, but in todays protestants it wouldnt be surprising if you were.

It just doesn't make any sense that Jesus would give a man authority of His Church

what God does may not make sense to ANYBODY, but we are still required to lend our assent, because the human will does not have the authority to question the sensical nature of God's divine plan. it is as it is and we submit ourselves before it.

if you are looking for the sense of it, think of it this way, if there really is one person who is ensured that they can speak no doctrinal error because the Holy Spirit guards them, then people can trust the word of their church and know that their beliefs are those which are taught by God Himself in the form of the Holy Spirit through His representative on earth.

On the other hand, without one person in whom we can be sure that no doctrinal error can be taught, we are forced to rely on the fallable interpretations of man. ultimately, we must always question then whether or not our particular pastor would be sane enough to be rationally interpreting everything correctly... but how would we determine other than through our OWN opinion and whats to say that our interpretation is even rational. THAT is how we have 30,000 seperate protestant denominations floundering around in their generally relativistic search for PERSONAL truth rather than DIVINE truth which is the inspiration for true faith.

especially a man who denied him three times.

every time you sin, you deny your Lord. every time you sin you become the reason that Christ had to die so horribly on the cross. it wasnt just some long dead people who crucified Jesus, it is US (you, me, everybody) TODAY who are a continuing reason that Jesus had to die. no man alive is perfect in the way that Christ was, but the ultimate wonder of miracles is not that God comes down Himself and does everything, but rather that the lowly shepard brings the word and the majesty of the Father to the whole flock. simon the Cepha was not perfect, but he was the shepard whom God chose to bring about glory... kinda like moses, kinda like david... i see a pattern of God choosing ONE spiritual leader here... i wonder why?

Also I don't understand how exactly you get that interpretation. Jesus says "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church." He doesn't say "upon you I will build my Church."

what you are still failing to understand is that Jesus didnt say "simon, you are now named Peter and on this rock I will build My church." what Jesus said is "simon you are cepha and on this rock i will build my church."

you see, Jesus wasnt saying 'this is your new name.' He says VERY clearly "SIMON, YOU ARE ROCK AND ON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH." only a deceptive person or a ignorant one could interpret that any other way than as Jesus clearly stated... that Peter is the rock on which the church is built. it makes sense. Peter(s office) is the rock on which the church rests with Christ as the foundation and cornerstone. the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth (the walls) and the Holy Spirit is the roof which shelters it all from the rain that Satan throws against it. THAT is what it means to be part of the universal christian church, not some abstract unformed grouping of various dissenters whose only agreement is that they dont want to be one church, but rather in the walls that are the body of believers, on the floor that is the foundation of Christ, sheilded by the Holy Spirit and built on the shepard appointed by God. THAT is a church to which i am proud to belong.

Even if Jesus did give Peter the authority to His Church, where does Jesus say that Peter can give the authority to someone else?

this is a very valid point. peter doesnt have the authority to delegate the power of Christ to others. how then does that work out. well, just as Christ told peter "what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven," so peter then could turn around and tell his fellow apostles who became the bishops that "whatsoever you loose on earth, so shall I loose on earth as well." And since Peter has chosen to forgive as the bishops did, and Christ has stated that He forgives what the office of peter forgives we can know we are absolved instead of merely hoping. what a comfort.

Another question I have is why does the Catholic Church have priests and popes if Jesus said "But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all you are brethren. And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters; for one is you master, Christ."

why again did God appoint moses to lead, or sampson, or david, or mary to recieve the Honor of being the mother of God? why elijah? why any number of shepards? you misunderstand the interpretation again. the correct translation of that verse couldnt even have the word rabbi in it any way since rabbinic judaism didnt come about until after Jesus' time. further the word father used for Father in Heaven is ABBA. Hebrew has several different words for father, each of which has a distinctly different meaning. Thus it is wrong for us to call another man ABBA (or divine father) but not wrong for us to call our father as he is, our earthly father. in much the same way, we call no man our divine master as we are servants of God, but that does not mean that we dont recognize our employers as our leaders or our educated people as having masters degrees.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 13, 2005.

Don't even try to say i'm not knowledgeable about the Catholic Church. I was raised a strict Catholic, I went to a Catholic school and went to church every morning except for saturday. I was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church. A person that is truly knowledgeable about the Catholic Church cannot possibly be a Catholic because they would be able to see all the errors and contradictions contained within it. Also If the pope is infallible, how do you explain the changes made by Vatican II that go directly against the doctrines of previous popes?

-- Matthew (mattprom1982@hotmail.com), January 13, 2005.

How can you say my heart is hardened? You don't know me at all. - Matthew

Matthew, I said if your heart is hardened. You're absolutely right, I don't know you at all. I don't know if you're heart is hardened or not. Please accept my apology for implying that your heart is hardened. I make no judgments about you or your soul.

However, the content of your posts are common objections and misconceptions of both Scripture and the Church for which there are truthful replies. I recommend you check out Catholic Answers. They have a library of answers to common objections which I'm sure you've heard.

I fear you may have turned your back on the Catholic Church without really knowing her and others have poisoned your mind against the truth before you even knew it.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 13, 2005.

Don't even try to say i'm not knowledgeable about the Catholic Church. I was raised a strict Catholic, I went to a Catholic school and went to church every morning except for saturday. I was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church. - Matthew

Matthew, all those things don't necessarily mean you know Catholic teaching. I was also raised Catholic. As an adult, when it became time to make the Faith your own, I blew it off and my faith stagnated and withered. It took different things to start my search for the truth and return to the Church.

Would you trust atheists to tell you the truth about Christianity? Should I learn about what you're really like by talking to your enemies? Then why trust Protestants to tell you what the Church really teaches?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 13, 2005.

Don't even try to say i'm not knowledgeable about the Catholic Church. I was raised a strict Catholic, I went to a Catholic school and went to church every morning except for saturday. I was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church.

please, that doesnt make you knowledgable at all. you may have BEEN catholic, but theological education and state of being are two entirely different things. from the misinformed posts you've made regarding the catholic church here on this forum, its very apparent that you DONT know much about the catholic faith at all. How about this, without looking it up, name the seven sacraments of the church. if you can't even do that then you're not knowledgable about the church in the slightest. but lets assume that you DO know about the church... and yet you continually post errors here in this forum. that would make you a deliberate liar. im choosing to take the best opinion of you by believing that your ignorance is unintentional and not a malicious attempt to attack the church through slanders.

A person that is truly knowledgeable about the Catholic Church cannot possibly be a Catholic because they would be able to see all the errors and contradictions contained within it.

thus far the only thing i've seen is how you twist scriptures around and around until something as obvious as "you are rock and on this rock I will build My church" becomes "dude, you're awesome, want a cookie?"

when you stop twisting the scriptures through the random gyrations that are needed to reach general protestant theory then you'll see that honest and academic reflection of the scriptures and history points 100% to catholicism.

Also If the pope is infallible, how do you explain the changes made by Vatican II that go directly against the doctrines of previous popes?

Vatican II was not a doctrinal council. no doctrine was ever discussed during vatican II. if you are refering to the fact that the form of the mass was changed, i have this to say... the mass is the same as it always was, the form has been modified slightly but the rites of the mass are still present exactly as they were two thousand years ago. the church has the power to change its disciplines (ie, forms such as the language at mass) but not to change its doctrines (ie, the rites of the mass). but this is where it shows that you are not knowledgable about the catholic church, you dont even know the difference between dogma and discipline or know enough about vatican II to know that it wasnt dogmatic in nature. stick around for awhile, take off the teaching cap, put on the learning cap, as its going to be a long lesson. you claim to be searching for the truth... no one ever discovered truth by telling others what they already think.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 13, 2005.

nameing the seven sacraments knowledgeable? anyone knows the sacrements, I had to remember all of the catecisms and every little detail about catholicism so don't even try to say i'm not knowledgeable on it. Twisting scripture??? I was actually using them as they are exactly stated, you are the ones who have been twisting it. The bible does not say "you are rock and on this rock i will build my church" it says plainly "you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church" If it was meant to say "you are rock" the two words would have been the same.

Also how can you possibly say that the mass is the same as it was 2000 years ago, that is the biggest lie i have ever heard. I grew up in the TRADITIONAL tridentine mass and it is day and night difference from the current mass. the entire meaning and everything has changed. and why are you so against protestants yet you go to a protestant mass. Did you know that the current catholic mass, the novus ordo missae, was written by 6 protestant ministers, which were headed by a priest who had been a freemason? the liturgies, the forms of the sacraments, almost everything has been changed since vatican II. Why do you think the current mass is so similar to protastant masses. Many modern catholics try to claim that the doctrines and the mass have not changed, yet i've seen them change with my own eyes. trust me, i know a lot more about Catholicism than you think. If you don't believe me I would recommend you find a book titled "What has happened to the Catholic Church?" written by reverand Francisco Radecki and reverand Dominic Radecki. This book was given to me by my dad and he got it from his CATHOLIC priest. I have documents upon documents given to me by a catholic priest showing how the modern catholic mass is invalid and how the doctrines and canon law have been changed.

-- Matthew (mattprom1982@hotmail.com), January 14, 2005.

> "The bible does not say "you are rock and on this rock i will build my church" it says plainly "you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church" If it was meant to say "you are rock" the two words would have been the same."

A: If you understood the Scriptures you would realize the two words ARE the same! Jesus said to SIMON the Apostle, in Aramaic, "Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church". Exactly the same word, with exactly the same meaning - rock! The difference in spelling seen in the Greek translation is merely a quirk of Greek grammatical construction. The Greek translation of Kepha is "Petra" - rock. However, Petra is a feminine Greek noun. Therefore in the first usage, where Jesus equates "rock" with Simon's name - "THOU art Petra", the noun had to be masculinized to "Petros", since a feminine noun could not be used as a man's name. The two spellings are still one and the same word, just as they were when Jesus spoke them, a fact that Protestant scholars familiar with Greek recognize.

> "Also how can you possibly say that the mass is the same as it was 2000 years ago, that is the biggest lie i have ever heard. I grew up in the TRADITIONAL tridentine mass and it is day and night difference from the current mass. the entire meaning and everything has changed"

A: Such a statement only reveals that you don't understand the Mass any better than you understand the Scriptures. The Tridentine Mass is "day and night different" from the Mass of the Last Supper, yet is still a valid Mass because it incorporates all the essential elements of the first Mass. The Mass is not defined by the externals, but by the profound reality which those externals are intended to support and emphasize. Apparently the externals are all you see when you look at the Mass.

> "Did you know that the current catholic mass, the novus ordo missae, was written by 6 protestant ministers, which were headed by a priest who had been a freemason?"

A: I am familiar with all the absurd claims that schismatic "Catholics" bring against the Holy Council which gifted us with the new order of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

> "The liturgies, the forms of the sacraments, almost everything has been changed since vatican II. Why do you think the current mass is so similar to protastant masses."

A: Yes there have been changes in FORM as a result of Vatican II. But no changes in essence. That is the key point that schismatics fail to recognize. There is no such thing as "Protestant masses". No Protestant worship service is remotely similar to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. A few, like Anglican services, may be similar in form, but again, the Mass is not defined by form. Even the few Protestant services that resemble a Mass in the externals are miles away from the essence of the Holy Mass.

> "I have documents upon documents given to me by a catholic priest showing how the modern catholic mass is invalid and how the doctrines and canon law have been changed".

A: Such "documents" are nothing but the unauthoritative interpretations of individual dissidents and schismatics. Such people represent the new wave of doctrinal definition by personal interpretation that characterized the Protestant Rebellion. Only in this rebellion it isn't personal interpretation of Scripture that such self-appointed would-be "authorities" throw in the face of God's Church, but personal interpreation of the Church's own authoritative decisions regarding its universal worship.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 14, 2005.

So Jesus is saying that Peter is feminine huh.

Do you not believe me about the new mass being written by protestants???

-- Matthew (mattprom1982@hotmail.com), January 14, 2005.

So I guess every English translation of the Bible is wrong since they all say "you are Peter" instead of "you are rock"

It doesn't matter if the changes in the mass are subtle, according to church doctrine the mass was not to change in anyway.

"We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure." (Pope Pius V, Quo Primum)

-- Matthew (mattprom1982@hotmail.com), January 14, 2005.

> "So I guess every English translation of the Bible is wrong since they all say "you are Peter" instead of "you are rock""

A: "You are Peter" and "you are rock" are one and the same, since "Peter" is merely an anglicisation of "Petra", which means "Rock", and nothing else!

> "It doesn't matter if the changes in the mass are subtle, according to church doctrine the mass was not to change in anyway"

A: There is no such "doctrine". The order of the Mass is not a doctrinal issue. If it were, changing the Mass from the original Aramaic into Greek (long before the more modern Latin order of Mass was imposed) would have been heresy. Further, there have been innumerable changes made to the order of the Mass throughout the centuries, all of which have been completely within the Church's jurisdiction. The only basis you have for opposing the latest changes is "it's not what you grew up with". Well, the Tridentine Mass isn't what the Apostles grew up with. But the Mass is the Mass and will always be so.

> "We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure." (Pope Pius V, Quo Primum)

A: And, obedient to that disciplinary directive, nothing was changed within that missal for as long as it remained in effect. However, that missal was later replaced by subsequent versions of the missal, completely within the purview of the Church. Obviously a directive concerning the use of a non-infallible document remains in effect only as long as the document itself.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 14, 2005.

Congratulations, you finally figured out the contradictions in the Catholic church. Something that is infallible can NEVER change. It is NOT POSSIBLE. Introducing new missals is a form of changing the official missal. And yes I know that there have been changes throughout the history of the church, that was exactly my point and one of the biggest reasons that i know the Catholic church is not the true church of Christ. "Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration." (James 1:17)

I see that you do not care about the truth, but i do thank you dearly for at least listening to what i had to say. Since there is no way I can change what you believe and there is no way you can change what I believe, we are only wasting time by arguing. I shall pray for you that God will give you the strength to open your eyes. Good bye, and God Bless You my friend.

-- Matthew (mattprom1982@hotmail.com), January 14, 2005.

> "Something that is infallible can NEVER change. It is NOT POSSIBLE."

A: That is exactly correct! And therefore you know that anything which has changed was not infallible! And, since the doctrinal truths of the Church are infallible, anything that has changed is not and never was doctrine.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 14, 2005.