Interactive Graphic: The Story of Every Pope In History, From Saint Peter To Pope Francis

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9932080/Interactive-graphic-the-story-of-every-Pope-in-history-from-Saint-Peter-to-Pope-Francis.html

More fiction from Rome.

That’s only if recorded history is fiction. Apparently, confused by the facts, some can’t tell the difference between fact and fiction.

Interactive Graphic: The Story of Every Pope In History, From Saint Peter To Pope Francis

You left off the "interactive graphic" from the excerpt:

"That’s only if recorded history is fiction."

Okay, we can go with that...

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (Catholic University of America, 1967), vol 1, page 632

"But it must be frankly admitted that bias or deficiencies in the sources make it impossible to determine in certain cases whether the claimants were popes or anti-popes." Hmmm.

We don’t photoshop here.

I suspect that a lot of antipathy toward the Roman Church is that others do not have a verifiable 2,000 ear history that has been documented. They do not have the history, the mystery, the martyrs, saints, the art, architecture, great cathedrals, the claim of canonizing scripture, and amazing richness the Roman Catholic Church has. I don’t hold it against them, however. Those who believe in the Trinity are all right by me.

Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?

Allow me this imperfect analogy. In a discussion by parent and adult child, child asks parent if they know a certain relative. Parent knows relative and states the wife had a miscarriage. No medical record of the miscarriage was made.

Since this was an important piece of family history, the story was told and retold through the generations.

Several generations later, in writing a family history, a “modern” relative recounts the story, but admits no records exist.

In light of this circumstance, would you call the story fiction?

Peter was not a pope.

The folks I know, who’ve been brave enough to actually read history, have since converted to Catholicism.

[Yes, there may have been some pretenders to the bark of St.Peter]

Here’s the Abstract from Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272a.htm

See also POPE, LIST OF POPES, PAPAL ELECTIONS, ELECTION OF THE POPE.

The historical lists of the popes, from those drawn up in the second century to those of the present day, form in themselves a considerable body of literature. It would be beyond the scope of the article to enter upon a discussion of these catalogues. For an account of the most famous of them all, the article LIBER PONTIFICALIS may be consulted. It appears, however, desirable to indicate very briefly what are our authorities for the names and the durations in office of the popes for the first two centuries of the Church’s existence.

St. Irenaeus, writing between 175 and 190, not many years after his Roman sojourn, enumerates the series from Peter to Eleutherius (Against Heresies III.3.3; Eusebius, Church History V.6). His object, as we have already seen, was to establish the orthodoxy of the traditional doctrine, as opposed to heretical novelties, by showing that the bishop was the natural inheritor of the Apostolic teaching. He gives us the names alone, not the length of the various episcopates. This need is supplied by other witnesses.

Most important evidence is furnished by the document entitled the “Liberian Catalogue” — so called from the Pope whose name ends the list. The collection of tracts of which this forms a part was edited (apparently by one Furius Dionysius Philocalus) in 354. The catalogue consists of a list of the Roman bishops from Peter to Liberius, with the length of their respective episcopates, the consular dates, the name of the reigning emperor, and in many cases other details. There is the strongest ground for believing that the earlier part of the catalogue, as far as Pontian (230-35), is the work of Hippolytus of Portus. It is manifest that up to this point the fourth century compiler was making use of a different authority from that which he employs for the subsequent popes: and there is evidence rendering it almost certain that Hippolytus’s work “Chronica” contained such a list.

The reign of Pontian, moreover, would be the point at which that list would have stopped: for Hippolytus and he were condemned to servitude in the Sardinian mines — a fact which the chronographer makes mention when speaking of Pontian’s episcopate. Lightfoot has argued that this list originally contained nothing but the names of the bishops and the duration of their episcopates, the remaining notes being additions by a later hand. The list of popes is identical with that of Irenaeus, save that Anacletus is doubled into Cletus and Anacletus, while Clement appears before, instead of after, these two names. The order of Popes Pius and Anicetus has also been interchanged. There is every reason to regard these differences as due to the errors of copyists.

Another witness is Eusebius. The names and episcopal years of the bishops can be gathered alike from his “History” and his “Chronicle”. The notices in the two works; can be shown to be in agreement, notwithstanding certain corruptions in many texts of the “Chronicle”. This Eastern list in the hands of Eusebius is seen to have been identical with the Western list of Hippolytus, except that in the East the name of Linus’s successor seems to have been given as Anencletus, in the original Western list as Cletus.

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).

We learn from Eusebius (Church History IV.22) that in the middle of the second century Hegesippus, the Hebrew Christian, visited Rome and that he drew up a list of bishops as far as Anicetus, the then pope. Eusebius does not quote his catalogue, but Lightfoot sees ground for holding that we possess it in a passage of Epiphanius (Haer. 27:6), in which the bishops as far as Anicetus are enumerated.

This list of Hegesippus, drawn up less than a century after the martyrdom of St. Peter, was he believes, the foundation alike of the Eusebian and Hippolytan catalogues (Clement of Rome I, 325 so.). His view has been accepted by many scholars. Even those who, like Harnack (Chronologie, I, 184 sq.), do not admit that this list is really that of Hegesippus, recognize it as a catalogue of Roman origin and of very early date, furnishing testimony independent alike of the Eusebian and Liberian lists.

The “Liber Pontificalis”, long accepted as an authority of the highest value, is now acknowledged to have been originally composed at the beginning of the fifth century, and, as regards the early popes, to be dependent on the “Liberian Catalogue”.

In the numbering of the successors of St. Peter, certain differences appear in various lists. The two forms Anacletus and Cletus, as we have seen, very early occasioned the third pope to be reckoned twice. There are some few cases, also, in which it is still doubted whether particular individuals should be accounted genuine popes or intruders, and, according to the view taken by the compiler of the list, they will be included or excluded. In the accompanying list the Stephen immediately following Zacharias (752) is not numbered, since, though duly elected, he died before his consecration. At that period the papal dignity was held to be conferred at consecration, and hence he is excluded from all the early lists.

Leo VIII (963) is included, as the resignation of Benedict V, though enforced, may have been genuine. Boniface VII is also ranked as a pope, since, in 984 at least, he would seem to have been accepted as such by the Roman Church. The claim of Benedict X (1058) is likewise recognized. It cannot be affirmed that his title was certainly invalid, and his name, though now sometimes excluded, appears in the older catalogues.

It should be observed that there is no John XX in the catalogue. This is due to the fact that, in the “Liber Pontificalis”, two dates are given in connexion with the life of John XIV (983). This introduced confusion into some of the papal catalogues, and a separate pope was assigned to each of these dates. Thus three popes named John were made to appear between Benedict VII and Gregory V. The error led the pope of the thirteenth century who should have been called John XX to style himself John XXI (Duchesne, “Lib. Pont.” 2:17).

Some only of the antipopes find mention in the list. No useful purpose would be served by giving the name of every such claimant.

Many of them possess no historical importance whatever. From Gregory VII onward not merely the years but the precise days are assigned on which the respective reigns commenced and closed. Ancient authorities furnish these details in the case of most of the foregoing popes also: but, previously to the middle of the eleventh century, the information is of uncertain value. With Gregory VII a new method of reckoning came in. The papal dignity was held to be conferred by the election, and not as previously by the coronation, and the commencement of the reign was computed from the day of election. This point seems therefore a convenient one at which to introduce the more detailed indications.

For the full list of men who have held this office, see LIST OF POPES.

Didn’t mean to school you. But some prior reading might have helped.

The Pope (from Latin: papa; from Greek: pappas,[1] a child’s word for father)[2] is the Bishop of Rome and the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church.[3] In the Catholic Church, the Pope is regarded as the successor of Saint Peter, the Apostle.

Peter was the first Pope. He is always mentioned first with all the apostles. And mentioned more times than all the rest of them put together. He was the one speaking at the Council of Jerusalem and on Pentecost Sunday.

Don’t you have a Bible? To whom did Christ give the Keys of the Kingdom? To Peter!!!!

I think you nailed it. All the other so-called Christian denominations are like wild mushrooms sprouting around the giant mustard tree, this wild growth fertilized by low-intellect followers soon withers and die, not unlike the neighborhood Foursquare Church with their self-ordained and televangelical pastors from Rev. Joel Osteen to Rev. Jim Jones to Rev. Schuller, to Rev. Wright and to Rev. Jesse Jackson and beyond.

A Christian Pilgrim

PETER AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

We, Catholic Christians, believe that Christ built His Church upon Peter by quoting the Gospel of Matthew to justify our stand: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:18-19 RSV).

Those who do not believe, however, came with some biblical argumentations. (1) Saint Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1Cor 3:11). (2) Filled with the Holy Spirit, Saint Peter boldly said to the Jewish religious leaders: “This (Christ) is the stone which was rejected by you builders, but which has become the head of the corner. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is not other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:11-12). (3) Saint Peter also said, “To you therefore who believe, He is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall ……” (1Peter 2:7-8). Thus, it is very clear that Jesus Christ is the Rock, not Peter or his successors.

Christ is both FOUNDER and FOUNDATION of the Church. Not only do those who accuse us, accuse us falsely, but they distort Scripture to suit their purpose. Catholics do not mean to say that salvation is “built” upon Peter nor the Christ’s Church is founded by Peter. Christ is both the FOUNDER and FOUNDATION of His Church. Without Christ, there is no Church. Christ is not only the Savior of Christians. He is also the Life of Christians.

Christ, however, did found a “visible” Church with the twelve Apostles as leaders and Saint Peter as their chief. In the lives of the Apostles as leaders and Saint Peter often took the lead. When Jesus asked His disciples at Caesarea Philipi, “Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15), who took the lead to express the belief of the disciples? It was Peter. Let us now read the whole text: “And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven ……’” (Matthew 16:17-19).

The context before and after the phrase “on this rock,” is Christ’s address to Peter. Grammatically, it is untenable that Christ suddenly in a small phrase without any justification applies this rock to Himself. If it were not a reference to Peter, why should it say, “You are Peter, and on this rock …” Let us now replace “this rock” with “Christ” and see if it makes sense grammatically. “And I tell, you are Peter, and on Christ I will build My Church.” Does this sentence make sense? If Christ were referred to as “this rock”, the first part would have been left out without any loss of meaning. Besides, to whom did Jesus give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven? To Peter, of course! It would be absurd of Christ, who held the keys, to say that He would give the Keys to Himself.

The interpretation of this text to prove that Christ did not make Peter the rock upon which He would build His Church not only twists the text in such a way that it makes no sense but it also makes Our Lord Jesus Christ appear foolish. Peter in Greek language is Petros and rock is Petra. It is, in grammar, what we call a pun, a play of words. In the original Aramaic language spoken by Jesus, there is only one word, kepha, for Peter and the rock. It should read like this, “You are the kepha and upon this kepha I will build My Church.” In translating this into Greek, which has genders, it would sound silly to give Peter the word Petra which is feminine. It would be making fun of Peter. So the translator had no choice except to change the gender of the word to the masculine Petros.

Peter’s leadership. Peter’s leadership of the twelve can be easily seen in the New Testament by any unprejudiced reader. His name heads the list of Apostle’s names (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Of the inner circle of three – Peter, James and John – again Peter comes first (Mk 9:2; Mt 17:1; 26:37). When all the disciples of Christ left Him except the twelve Apostles because Jesus claimed that they must eat His Body and drink His Blood, Jesus asked the twelve, “Will you also go away?” Who answered for all the Apostles? Simon Peter answered, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that You are the Holy One of God.” (Jn 6: 67-68). After Jesus’ resurrection, the angel at the tomb told the women to go tell His disciples and Peter (Mk 16:7). Mary Magdalene ran up to Peter and told him of the Lord’s resurrection (Jn 20;2). When two of Jesus’ disciples on the road to Emmaus, after recognizing Jesus, returned to report to the eleven Apostles and “those who were with them, who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” (Lk 24:34). Why did the Gospel of Luke mention only the name of Simon Peter if it were not that he had a special standing among the disciples? In one of his letters, Saint Paul mentioned that the risen Lord appeared first to Cephas (Peter) and secondly to the other disciples (1Cor 15:5). Why should Paul make this specific reference to Peter if Peter had not a special role?

Peter’s role as rock or leader becomes clearer after Christ’s resurrection. At the lakeside, Jesus asked Peter three times, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” And thrice, when Peter confessed his love, Jesus said to him, “Feed My lambs”, “Tend My sheep”, “Feed My sheep” (Jn 21:15-17). This was predicted earlier by Christ, i.e. at the Last Supper, that Peter would deny Him three times before the cock crew, but Jesus prayed for him so that Peter’s faith may not fail: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” … “I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know Me” (Lk 22:31-32,34). Peter’s leadership was one of “feeding and strengthening” the faith of Christ’s disciples.

Peter did this after the descent of the Holy Spirit. He took the lead in choosing another Apostle in place of Judas (Acts 1:17), in addressing the crowd of people on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14), in defending Christ before the Jews and their priests and in condemning Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:3-10). He was in held in great reverence by all so that his shadow might fall on them and heal them (Acts 5:15). This was not said of other Apostles. Three years after his conversion Paul went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter and stayed with him for 15 days (Gal 1:18). Again, why Peter and not the others, if it were not that he was the undisputed leader?

Another objection and the response. There were (and still are) people who argue that Peter could not have been the leader of the Church because Paul did rebuke Peter for his inconsistency over the questions of circumcision and because James finally decided the issue.

This objection presupposes that leadership is a kind of tyranny. Why cannot a leader be rebuked for what he has done wrong, especially since Christian leadership is one of service, not of tyranny. Jesus said, “… the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve” (Mt 20:28). Peter’s leadership was one of humble service and that was why he accepted Paul’s rebuke. Christian leadership is always humble obedience to the Truth in service of others: to admit one’s mistakes and correct them for others. No human being is exempted from mistakes. The fact that Peter accepted Paul’s rebuke proved that he was a true leader following Christ’s command.

When the dispute over circumcision grew hot, the Apostles and the elders gathered in Jerusalem to discuss the matter (the first council – Acts 15). …… And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (Acts 15:7-11). After Peter’s speech “all the assembly kept silence” (Acts 15:12). Only then did the assembly listen willingly to Barnabas and Paul as they related the “signs and wonders” that God worked through them “among the Gentiles” (Acts 15:12). At the end of which, James, drawing the attention of all to what Peter said (Acts 15:14), gave his opinion (see verse 19). He agreed with Peter. It was only after all these that the final judgment was made by “the apostles and the elders” with the whole Church, for it “seemed good” to them (Acts 15:22). They choose men and sent them to Christian Gentiles with a written letter. The letter is important because it tells us who finally decided. It was not James but the “apostles and the elders” in whose name the letter was written, …… “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting” (Acts 15:23), who finally passed judgment. If any one person’s importance is emphasized, it is that of Peter, because the disciples “kept silence” after Peter’s speech. James only agreed with Peter and drew the attention of the others to Peter’s reasoning.

Peter’s successors. After the death of Saint Peter, his successors took the role of leadership. When conflict disturbed the Church of Corinth in the first century (90 A.D.), the appeal was made to Peter’s successor in Rome, Pope Saint Clement [pontificate: 88-97]. Saint Clement sent a letter of admonition and his correction was accepted by the Christians at Corinth. Why was not Saint John the Apostle called to settle the dispute? He was still alive at Ephesus by that time. In the second century [190 A.D.], the Eastern Churches again requested Pope Saint Victor I [pontificate: 189-199]. Bishop of Rome, to decide on the date of Easter. His decision was final. In the late second century, Saint Irenaeus [130-202], bishop of Lyons, wrote against false teachers saying, “the tradition which that very great, oldest, and well-known Church, founded and established at Rome by those two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, received from the apostles …… every church must be in harmony with this Church (the Church in Rome) because of its outstanding pre-eminence.” Cyprian of the third century [200-258] referred the question on baptism to Pope Saint Cornelius [pontificate: 251-253] and later to Pope Saint Stephen I [pontificate: 254-257] in Rome. Again their decision was adopted by all. Pope Saint Dionysius [+ 268] demanded from the Patriarch of Alexandria an explanation of certain articles of faith to which Alexandria complied. Cyprian, the martyr-bishop of Carthage wrote in the year 250,

“It is on him (Peter) that He (Jesus) builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although He assigned power to all the apostles, yet He founded a single chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the churches’ oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one chair …… If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon which the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”

In the fourth century, Saint Athanasius [296-373] appealed to Pope Julius I [pontificate: 337-353] against the unjust decision of some Oriental bishops. Pope Julius reversed the decision. All in the same century, Saint Jerome [347-420], the first great biblical scholar, wrote to Pope Saint Damasus I [pontificate: 366-384], “I follow no one as leader except Christ alone, and therefore I want to remain in union in the Church with you, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on this rock the Church is founded.” Archbishop of Caesarea, Saint Basil [330-379], asked Pope Damasus for protection against his enemies. In the fifth century, saint Chrysostom [344-407], Patriarch of Constantinople appealed to Pope Innocent I [pontificate: 401-417] to resolve grievances caused by Empress Eudoxia and some Eastern Bishops. In the controversy over the so called “Nestorian heresy”, both Saint Cyril [+ 444; bishop of Alexandria from 412] and Nestorius himself appealed to Pope Saint Celestine [pontificate: 422-432]. The following pope, Saint Pope Leo I the Great condemned Nestorius and his doctrine. The Patriarchs, Archbishops and bishops accepted Pope Leo’s decision saying, “Peter has spoken through Leo.” From the time of the Apostles till at least the 9^th century, Saint Peter and his successors were recognized as leaders of the Christians. We quoted only a few example of the recognition of primacy of the church in Rome in the early Church after the Apostles.

The bishop of Rome was and is a symbol and agent of unity in faith and love of all Christians. To deny the existence of a leader is not only to be blind to the leading role of Peter in the New Testament and to history but also to deny the necessary fact of human groupings.

References:

(1) Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, John Reumann (Editors), PETER IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, New York, N.Y.: Paulist Press, 1973;

(2) Matthew Bunson, OUR SUNDAY VISITOR’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CATHOLIC HISTORY, Hungtington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1995.

(3) Stanley L. Jaki, THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM, Chicago, Illinois: THE FRANCISCAN HERALD PRESS, 1986;

(4) Fr. Valentine Long OFM, UPON THIS ROCK, Chicago, Illinois: THE FRANCISCAN HERALD PRESS, 1982;

(5) Fr. Paul Tan Chee Ing SJ, STRAIGHT TO CATHOLICS, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Catholic Research Centre, 1984.

The doubters on this thread should read Eusebius’ “History of the Church” written in AD 325. One of its main themes is Apostolic Succession, and it is painstakingly detailed.

Peter was the head of the Apostles, was the Bishop of Antioch first, then went to Rome, where he baptized many and was martyred.

All the other so-called Christian denominations are like wild mushrooms sprouting around the giant mustard tree, this wild growth fertilized by low-intellect followers soon withers and die...

We don't need masonry, red and purple gowns, statues, etc., to learn the Word of God. All we need is the Word itself.

It is nearly the end of this age and we will be there at the end (we certainly will not have withered), and a few of us will not be fooled by antiChrist. We'll see who is easily fooled and who isn't. Are Catholics ready for the antiChrist? Will any Catholics be able to resist him? I'll bet of those Christians that resist antiChrist, many more will be of the kind like me who study with a bible and a few friends rather than those who are in some big congregation in a building decked out in pretty colors.

And how do you learn the “Word of God”? Who Teaches? Who do you think selected the Books of the Bible? They didn’t drop from the skies. They were chosen by the early Church Fathers (Popes), some of whom were contemporaries of the Gospel writers.

Peter was not a pope.

If Peter was the first Pope, he would have had a greater position than all the other disciples. When the disciples discussed which of them was the greatest in Luke 22:24-27, Jesus had the best opportunity to affirm Peter's headship as the first Pope but Jesus simply said that the greatest shall be a servant of all. Thus Jesus showed no special papal leadership to Peter and nor should we. One would not find the disciples arguing among themselves as to who was the greatest if they understood Peter to have supremacy. This argument was also on the last night of Christ's earthly ministry but still there was no such understanding of Peter being supreme. Why not? Because it was not given. If it had been given in Matthew 16:18-19, then it would have been made clear now but Jesus says not so.