Rome's Meaningless Claim to "Unbroken Chain Of Succession"

Thoughts of Francis Turrretin ^ | November 26, 2010 | TurretinFan

[RnMomof7]

The following is an example of Rome's claim of "unbroken succession" - provided by pope John Paul II:

Nevertheless, the Roman Pontiffs have exercised their authority in Rome and, according to the conditions and opportunities of the times, have done so in wider and even universal areas, by virtue of their succeeding Peter. Written documents do not tell us how this succession occurred in the first link connecting Peter with the series of the bishops of Rome. It can be deduced, however, by considering everything that Pope Clement states in the letter cited above regarding the appointment of the first bishops and their successors. After recalling that the apostles, "preaching in the countryside and the cities, experienced their first fruits in the Spirit and appointed them bishops and deacons of future believers" (42, 4), St. Clement says in detail that, in order to avoid future conflicts regarding the episcopal dignity, the apostles "appointed those whom we said and then ordered that, after they had died, other proven men would succeed them in their ministry" (44, 2). The historical and canonical means by which that inheritance is passed on to them can change, and have indeed changed. But over the centuries, an unbroken chain links that transition from Peter to his first successor in the Roman See.

(link)

This is a typical claim we hear from Roman Catholics all the time. It sounds great - but is either simply untrue, or totally meaningless. Before we get to the claim itself, look at the wind-up for the claim.

John Paul 2 asserts: "The historical and canonical means by which that inheritance is passed on to them can change, and have indeed changed." Let's be blunt, the reason he thinks it "can change," is the fact that way by which Roman bishops have been appointed has been repeatedly changed. There's no Biblical teaching that the way by which bishops are appointed can change. In fact, if the way by which Roman bishops hadn't changed over the years, we'd probably be told that it was an apostolic tradition that cannot be changed. That's simply an artifact of not having a single, written rule of faith.

But that's only a small part of the reason why the "unbroken chain" claim is bogus. In other words, the fact that they pick bishops today in a way that is different from 100 years ago or 1000 years ago, each of which is different from what is now (100 years ago, there was not an age limit for voting cardinals, and 1000 years ago, there was no college of cardinals) is only one aspect. That's the aspect of the mode of succession. The mode has been broken. Roman bishops are not appointed the way they used to be - and consequently when we hear about an "unbroken chain," it cannot mean that the mechanism of succession itself is unbroken.

Another aspect, and perhaps a bigger one, is the problem of what it would take to make the chain "broken."

Is it time? Ask your Roman Catholic friends (and they are welcome to answer here) how much of a gap would constitute a break. The current way of picking new bishops of Rome necessarily involves there being gaps between the reign of popes. It's not like the British monarchy, where as soon as one monarch dies, a new monarch is automatically apparent because of the rules of hereditary succession.

Thus, there are always gaps and breaks in the chain. There was a time period that elapsed between the death of John Paul II and the election of Joseph Ratzinger (who became known as Benedict XVI).

But there is no actual standard of what gap of time is acceptable, and what gap would break succession. Thus, it is simply impossible to say what gap is acceptable. For example, according to a typical list of popes (example) there was no pope during the whole years 259, 305-307, 639, 1242, 1269-1270, 1293, 1315, and 1416, not to mention the many partial years. That's over a half dozen breaks of over a year.

Being deposed? Benedict IX was deposed twice and restored. His biography states:

The nephew of his two immediate predecessors, Benedict IX was a man of very different character to either of them. He was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter. Regarding it as a sort of heirloom, his father Alberic placed him upon it when a mere youth ... .

It goes on to relate:

Taking advantage of the dissolute life he was leading, one of the factions in the city drove him from it (1044) amid the greatest disorder, and elected an antipope (Sylvester III) in the person of John, Bishop of Sabina (1045 -Ann. Romani, init. Victor, Dialogi, III, init.). Benedict, however, succeeded in expelling Sylvester the same year; but, as some say, that he might marry, he resigned his office into the hands of the Archpriest John Gratian for a large sum. John was then elected pope and became Gregory VI (May, 1045). Repenting of his bargain, Benedict endeavoured to depose Gregory. This resulted in the intervention of King Henry III. Benedict, Sylvester, and Gregory were deposed at the Council of Sutri (1046) and a German bishop (Suidger) became Pope Clement II. After his speedy demise, Benedict again seized Rome (November, 1047), but was driven from it to make way for a second German pope, Damasus II (November, 1048).

(source for biography)

Being outrageously sinful? Alexander VI was another pope who allegedly obtained his position through simony, but that's not perhaps the worst of it. He not only openly acknowledged his children (yes, of course he was not married), but even used his political strength to try either to benefit or exploit them. A very favorable Roman biography of him touches on the matter in this delicate way:

Notwithstanding these and similar actions, which might seem to entitle him to no mean place in the annals of the papacy, Alexander continued as Pope the manner of life that had disgraced his cardinalate (Pastor, op. cit., III, 449 152). A stern Nemesis pursued him till death in the shape of a strong parental affection for his children.

It goes on to say:

An impartial appreciation of the career of this extraordinary person must at once distinguish between the man and the office. "An imperfect setting", says Dr. Pastor (op. cit., III, 475), "does not affect the intrinsic worth of the jewel, nor does the golden coin lose its value when it passes through impure hands. In so far as the priest is a public officer of a holy Church, a blameless life is expected from him, both because he is by his office the model of virtue to whom the laity look up, and because his life, when virtuous, inspires in onlookers respect for the society of which he is an ornament. But the treasures of the Church, her Divine character, her holiness, Divine revelation, the grace of God, spiritual authority, it is well known, are not dependent on the moral character of the agents and officers of the Church. The foremost of her priests cannot diminish by an iota the intrinsic value of the spiritual treasures confided to him." There have been at all times wicked men in the ecclesiastical ranks. Our Lord foretold, as one of its severest trials, the presence in His Church not only of false brethren, but of rulers who would offend, by various forms of selfishness, both the children of the household and "those who are without". Similarly, He compared His beloved spouse, the Church, to a threshing floor, on which fall both chaff and grain until the time of separation. The most severe arraignments of Alexander, because in a sense official, are those of his Catholic contemporaries, Pope Julius II (Gregorovius, VII, 494) and the Augustinian cardinal and reformer, Aegidius of Viterbo, in his manuscript "Historia XX Saeculorum", preserved at Rome in the Bibliotheca Angelica. The Oratorian Raynaldus (d. 1677), who continued the semi-official Annals of Baronius, gave to the world at Rome (ad an. 1460, no. 41) the above-mentioned paternal but severe reproof of the youthful Cardinal by Pius II, and stated elsewhere (ad an. 1495, no. 26) that it was in his time the opinion of historians that Alexander had obtained the papacy partly through money and partly through promises and the persuasion that he would not interfere with the lives of his electors. Mansi, the scholarly Archbishop of Lucca editor and annotator of Raynaldus, says (XI, 4155) that it is easier to keep silence than to write write moderation about this Pope. The severe judgment of the late Cardinal Hergenröther, in his "Kirchengeschichte", or Manual of Church History (4th. ed., Freiburg, 1904, II, 982-983) is too well known to need more than mention.

So little have Catholic historians defended him that in the middle of the nineteenth century Cesare Cantù could write that Alexander VI was the only Pope who had never found an apologist.

(source for biography)

Being a heretic? Honorius I was condemned as a monophosite heretic by centuries of Roman bishops. (see the linked article)

Leaving Rome? For about 70 years (and seven popes), the seat of the papacy was not in Rome but in Avignon, France (see the linked article).

Needing an Ecumenical Council to Jump-Start it? Among the tasks of the Council of Constance (considered the 15th Ecumenical Council by the Roman church) was to, in effect, decide who got to be pope, thereby ending a three-way dispute that had been on-going (link to discussion of council from a Roman Catholic perspective).

How much more broken could it really get? I guess the things above could have happened more often or for longer periods of time - but is that really the appropriate measure of things? I think the short answer is that the claim of an "unbroken chain" of succession is just hot air - an empty claim supported by nothing but the wishful thinking of those who support Rome.

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

Isn’t here a scene from Monty Python where 20 crusaders are about to be wiped out by a horde of Muslims. A fight breaks on between a Dominican and a Franciscan monk.

“Free will” “No predestination” they yell as they roll on the ground choking each other.

As this fight breaks out the horde on the hill starts charging.

This reminds me of that.

[bike800]

Because no other denomination has EVER done that before...

[Salvation]

The List of Popes

1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
18. St. Pontain (230-35)
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
20. St. Fabian (236-50)
21. St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34. St. Marcus (336)
35. St. Julius I (337-52)
36. Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
37. St. Damasus I (366-84) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
38. St. Siricius (384-99)
39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
42. St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
50. Anastasius II (496-98)
51. St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
53. St. John I (523-26)
54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
55. Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
56. John II (533-35)
57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
58. St. Silverius (536-37)
59. Vigilius (537-55)
60. Pelagius I (556-61)
61. John III (561-74)
62. Benedict I (575-79)
63. Pelagius II (579-90)
64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65. Sabinian (604-606)
66. Boniface III (607)
67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
69. Boniface V (619-25)
70. Honorius I (625-38)
71. Severinus (640)
72. John IV (640-42)
73. Theodore I (642-49)
74. St. Martin I (649-55)
75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
78. Donus (676-78)
79. St. Agatho (678-81)
80. St. Leo II (682-83)
81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
82. John V (685-86)
83. Conon (686-87)
84. St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
85. John VI (701-05)
86. John VII (705-07)
87. Sisinnius (708)
88. Constantine (708-15)
89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
91. St. Zachary (741-52) Stephen II followed Zachary, but because he died before being consecrated, modern lists omit him
92. Stephen II (III) (752-57)
93. St. Paul I (757-67)
94. Stephen III (IV) (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
95. Adrian I (772-95)
96. St. Leo III (795-816)
97. Stephen IV (V) (816-17)
98. St. Paschal I (817-24)
99. Eugene II (824-27)
100. Valentine (827)
101. Gregory IV (827-44)
102. Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope
103. St. Leo IV (847-55)
104. Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
105. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
106. Adrian II (867-72)
107. John VIII (872-82)
108. Marinus I (882-84)
109. St. Adrian III (884-85)
110. Stephen V (VI) (885-91)
111. Formosus (891-96)
112. Boniface VI (896)
113. Stephen VI (VII) (896-97)
114. Romanus (897)
115. Theodore II (897)
116. John IX (898-900)
117. Benedict IV (900-03)
118. Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
119. Sergius III (904-11)
120. Anastasius III (911-13)
121. Lando (913-14)
122. John X (914-28)
123. Leo VI (928)
124. Stephen VIII (929-31)
125. John XI (931-35)
126. Leo VII (936-39)
127. Stephen IX (939-42)
128. Marinus II (942-46)
129. Agapetus II (946-55)
130. John XII (955-63)
131. Leo VIII (963-64)
132. Benedict V (964)
133. John XIII (965-72)
134. Benedict VI (973-74)
135. Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
136. John XIV (983-84)
137. John XV (985-96)
138. Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
139. Sylvester II (999-1003)
140. John XVII (1003)
141. John XVIII (1003-09)
142. Sergius IV (1009-12)
143. Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
144. John XIX (1024-32)
145. Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
146. Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
147. Benedict IX (1045)
148. Gregory VI (1045-46)
149. Clement II (1046-47)
150. Benedict IX (1047-48)
151. Damasus II (1048)
152. St. Leo IX (1049-54)
153. Victor II (1055-57)
154. Stephen X (1057-58)
155. Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
156. Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
157. St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100)
158. Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
159. Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
160. Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
161. Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118)
162. Callistus II (1119-24)
163. Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
164. Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138)
165. Celestine II (1143-44)
166. Lucius II (1144-45)
167. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
168. Anastasius IV (1153-54)
169. Adrian IV (1154-59)
170. Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
171. Lucius III (1181-85)
172. Urban III (1185-87)
173. Gregory VIII (1187)
174. Clement III (1187-91)
175. Celestine III (1191-98)
176. Innocent III (1198-1216)
177. Honorius III (1216-27)
178. Gregory IX (1227-41)
179. Celestine IV (1241)
180. Innocent IV (1243-54)
181. Alexander IV (1254-61)
182. Urban IV (1261-64)
183. Clement IV (1265-68)
184. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
185. Blessed Innocent V (1276)
186. Adrian V (1276)
187. John XXI (1276-77)
188. Nicholas III (1277-80)
189. Martin IV (1281-85)
190. Honorius IV (1285-87)
191. Nicholas IV (1288-92)
192. St. Celestine V (1294)
193. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
194. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
195. Clement V (1305-14)
196. John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
197. Benedict XII (1334-42)
198. Clement VI (1342-52)
199. Innocent VI (1352-62)
200. Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
201. Gregory XI (1370-78)
202. Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
203. Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
204. Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
205. Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
206. Martin V (1417-31)
207. Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)
208. Nicholas V (1447-55)
209. Callistus III (1455-58)
210. Pius II (1458-64)
211. Paul II (1464-71)
212. Sixtus IV (1471-84)
213. Innocent VIII (1484-92)
214. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
215. Pius III (1503)
216. Julius II (1503-13)
217. Leo X (1513-21)
218. Adrian VI (1522-23)
219. Clement VII (1523-34)
220. Paul III (1534-49)
221. Julius III (1550-55)
222. Marcellus II (1555)
223. Paul IV (1555-59)
224. Pius IV (1559-65)
225. St. Pius V (1566-72)
226. Gregory XIII (1572-85)
227. Sixtus V (1585-90)
228. Urban VII (1590)
229. Gregory XIV (1590-91)
230. Innocent IX (1591)
231. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
232. Leo XI (1605)
233. Paul V (1605-21)
234. Gregory XV (1621-23)
235. Urban VIII (1623-44)
236. Innocent X (1644-55)
237. Alexander VII (1655-67)
238. Clement IX (1667-69)
239. Clement X (1670-76)
240. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
241. Alexander VIII (1689-91)
242. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
243. Clement XI (1700-21)
244. Innocent XIII (1721-24)
245. Benedict XIII (1724-30)
246. Clement XII (1730-40)
247. Benedict XIV (1740-58)
248. Clement XIII (1758-69)
249. Clement XIV (1769-74)
250. Pius VI (1775-99)
251. Pius VII (1800-23)
252. Leo XII (1823-29)
253. Pius VIII (1829-30)
254. Gregory XVI (1831-46)
255. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
256. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
257. St. Pius X (1903-14)
258. Benedict XV (1914-22) Biographies of Benedict XV and his successors will be added at a later date
259. Pius XI (1922-39)
260. Pius XII (1939-58)
261. St. John XXIII (1958-63)
262. Paul VI (1963-78)
263. John Paul I (1978)
264. St. John Paul II (1978-2005)
265. Benedict XVI (2005-2013)
266. Francis (2013—)

[LurkingSince'98]

your own ‘divinely inspired’ personal interpretation of scripture is just a caricature of the fullness of the Catholic faith.

You have Scripture and hundreds of millions of protestants each with their own separate but equal personal interpretations of what that scripture means, each acting like their own little gods who know better than anyone what scripture means.

Your caricature is just like your cut and paste - one dimension cutouts if the three dimensional Catholic faith.

AMDG

[HossB86]

It is sad that you feel the need to concern yourself with the Catholic Church’s beliefs.

Well... we're supposed to spread the Gospel.. right? Didn't Christ say to take the Gospel to the world? Well, seems to me, based on what I've read, the Catholic Church is the PRIME place where the Gospel needs to be preached.

I have never met any Catholic who concerns themselves one jot about the authority or in your case the lack of historic authority of the protestants prior to the 1500s.

Maybe you should read more of the Religion Forums posts?

For what reason would any Catholic ever care?

Not sure... not Catholic, thank The Lord.

Alternatively why would any protestant ever care?

Hmmm. Because we care about those who may be lost.

Who knew you actually wasted any time worrying about what we thought?

Well, I actually don't worry about it... but I do care about the apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church and the souls it misleads.

Hoss

[HossB86]

You have Scripture and hundreds of millions of protestants each with their own separate but equal personal interpretations of what that scripture means, each acting like their own little gods who know better than anyone what scripture means.

Funny you chose this old canard when there are basically a handful of scriptures that have been interpreted "infallibly" by the Magicsterium or Pope or whoever it is that sprinkles the fairy dust.... so all... ALL the other verses are interpreted by Catholics acting just like "their own little gods who know better than anyone else."

Funny.

Hoss

[jobim]

The following anti-Catholic postings represent only 2 months' worth. Were one to have posted this amount of anti-Hillary, or anti-Obama, or anti-NSA, or anti-global warming articles, I would wonder about such an obsession, even though we all share these same sentiments on FR. But to target a group of Freepers with this cascade of endless diatribes causes a greater wonderment at such an obsession.

Why are you so relentless?

Rome's Meaninless Claim to "Unbroken Chain Of Succession"

Was The Papacy Established By Christ? (Part 2)

Was The Papacy Established By Christ? (Part 1)

Roman Catholic “presuppositions” on the early papacy are in retreat

Are you infallible?

Blind Followers, Inconsistencies, Double Standards and More Confusion

The Reformation is over. Catholics 0, Protestants 1

“Assurance: Every Believer’s Birthright”

Prayers For, To,and Through the Dead

[Response to 2013 WSJ article] Cultural Catholicism and the End of Life: “You Earned It”

The Catholic Dogma of Infallibility

Thumbs up or thumbs down on Rome?

The Concept of Catholic Unity in the Doctrine of the Eucharist at the time of Trent

Mary's Virginity

The Catholic Eucharist: Unbiblical and Idolatry

Our paschal lamb

Interpreting The Bible And Later Sources On The Eucharist

Is John 6:66 Evidence of Transubstantiation?

The Bread of life Discourse

Never Thirst-Taking Jesus" Literally" can be Fatal

On taking John 6 literally

The Sacrifice of the Mass, Hebrews, and the Problem of the One-and-the-Many

The Evolution of the Sacrifice of the Mass: PART 2

Did Jesus Have Fleshly Half-Brothers?

Is the church a pillar & pedestal of truth?

Does Mary Intercede for Christians?

Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

Rejecting Mariology

By Faith Alone: The Conversion of Martin Luther

Rome, authority and Argumentum Ad Infinitum

Three Words Catholics Do Not Understand

Calvin contra Rome on Scripture (Introduction)

The Evolution of the Sacrifice of the Mass: Part 1

Idolatry

How Reliable Is Roman Catholic History?

An Example in a Recent Edition of This Rock Magazine

Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence

The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or corporeal flesh and blood?

The Conversion of a Catholic Priest

Explaining the Heresy of Catholicism Grace vs> works

The Nature of Justifying Faith

Why These 66 Books?

[RnMomof7]

your own ‘divinely inspired’ personal interpretation of scripture

His opinion of the scripture is as valid as your priests, bishop, or even the popes ...All fallible and subject to change

[RnMomof7]

I try as hard as I can

[RnMomof7]

Now Sal. at least Rome could be honest about this..

“The Western Schism or Papal Schism was a split within the Roman Catholic Church from 1378 to 1417.[1] Several men simultaneously claimed to be the true pope. Driven by politics rather than any theological disagreement, the schism was ended by the Council of Constance (1414–1418). For a time these rival claims to the papal throne damaged the reputation of the office. The affair is sometimes referred to as the Great Schism, although this term is typically reserved for the East–West Schism (1054) between the Western Churches answering to the See of Rome and the Orthodox Churches of the East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism

Antipopes of the Roman Catholic Church

Natalius Hippolytus Novatian Felix II Ursicinus Eulalius Laurentius Dioscorus Theodore Paschal Constantine II Philip John VIII Anastasius Christopher Boniface VII John XVI Gregory VI Benedict X Honorius II Clement III Theodoric Adalbert Sylvester IV Gregory VIII Celestine II Anacletus II Victor IV (1138) Victor IV (1159–1164) Paschal III Callixtus III Innocent III Nicholas V Clement VII Benedict XIII Alexander V John XXIII Clement VIII Benedict XIV Felix V Modern claimants to papacy

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[goodwithagun]

I reported post #10 for making it personal yet it is still here. Should the owner be pinged and asked if this is FR’s position on Catholicism?

[metmom]

Because your church tells everyone who is not them that they are going to hell.

“Outside the Church there is no Salvation”

From your own CCC.

If Catholics wish to submit to that church that is their business.

But to try to force all others into it under threat of eternal damnation, when Scripture does not teach that, is reprehensible.

If y’all are so worried about others leaving you alone, then leave others alone.

[LurkingSince'98]

“His opinion of the scripture is as valid as your priests, bishop, or even the popes ...All fallible and subject to change”

That is the protestant heresy and the reason Luther was anathema.

When two diametrically opposed interpretations of Scripture are claimed only one can be True and that is from the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

All of the myriad of protestant interpretations are merely humans playing God with their individual ‘divinely inspired’ interpretation.

Sorry Charlie humdreds of millions of different protestant interpretations cannot be right.

Im sure God is pleased to see you all interpreting His Word any way you want/please.

AMDG

[Salvation]

It’s from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. This is the truth.

[metmom]

Post 10 is NOT personal.

It addresses the Catholic church, not any one individual.

Quit whining.

[Religion Moderator]

Your abuse report was:

“Calling FReepers cultists?”

When the post wasn't removed, that indicates the answer is no.

Post 10 said:

***Matthew 16:18-20

Those verses should clarify things for you.

Actually, no. What it clarifies is that the Roman Catholic Cult misrepresents scripture to further its own misguided ends.***

It was not directed at an individual Freeper. Make sure you completely comprehend a comment before hitting the abuse button after misunderstanding a comment.

Please review the guidelines at my profile page by clicking on my name at the bottom of this post.

Keep this part in mind:

Members of religions which are as much culture as belief sometimes take religious debate personally. If you keep getting your feelings hurt because other posters ridicule or disapprove or hate what you hold dear, then you are too thin-skinned to be involved in “open” RF debate. You should IGNORE “open” RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”

[goodwithagun]

“It was not directed at an individual Freeper.”

Wow. It was directed at every single individual Catholic FReeper. Disturbing indeed.

[LurkingSince'98]

So wen we call protestants cultists it wont be a problem!

Thanks