The First 10 Popes of the Catholic Church

St. Peter's List ^ | December 17, 2012 | SPL Staff

[rwa265]

Listers, we’ve catalogued the first ten Vicars of Christ for the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Save the information on our first pope – St. Peter – all the information presented is taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia and links for further reading are provided.

1. Pope St. Peter (32-67)

St. Peter held a primacy amongst the twelve disciples that earned him the title “Prince of the Apostles.” This primacy of St. Peter was solidified when he was appointed by Jesus to the Office of the Vicar – demonstrated by Christ giving St. Peter the Keys to the Kingdom. To understand St. Peter, one must first understand Christ and the Church Christ came to establish. Jesus is the “Son of David” and his life and ministry fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies of the New Davidic Kingdom and New Jerusalem; hence, we look to the historic kingdom of King David as a guide to the New Davidic Kingdom. King David had a vicar that ruled his kingdom when David was absent and the sign of authority for this vicar was the keys of the kingdom. In the New Davidic Kingdom, Christ the Son of David gave the keys to his Vicar to guide the Kingdom until the return of Christ – we now refer to this vicar as “the pope.” SPL has written extensively on these issue in http://www.stpeterslist.com/45/10-biblical-reasons-christ-founded-the-papacy/ and http://www.stpeterslist.com/94/13-biblical-reasons-st-peter-was-the-prince-of-the-apostles/.

[MHGinTN]

Ah, but being exposed to the Gospel in any form is hot coals to the Agnostic heart. The atheist on the other hand just doesn’t bother reading any of the exchanges. So perhaps there is an outside chance an Agnostic can come alive in Christ.

[RnMomof7]

But some Christians are Catholics. I knew a Mormon who was first a Christian.

I have had RC's tel me they are Catholics..not Christians..

[verga]

Gee I wonder where he learned that ??

Your post #277 Catholics are not Christians

I am going to guess from posts like #277

[MHGinTN]

Hallmark of the Nicolaitan reality that is modern catholicism.

[Thales Miletus]

Just which part of that post causes you to think it should be pulled?

Apparently the exact same part as Verga, and the powers that be.

I see nothing in it that would justify such a move.

Maybe you should ask the powers that be to explain it to you.

[BlueDragon]

Maybe you should ask the powers that be to explain it to you.

Since I missed a comment which you had made that was also deleted, and didn't get a chance to view what the contents of that was, including whatever(?) complaint there may have been, if you would, resend (by freepmail) what was deleted, if you still have copy of it. I'd like to see it.

As it is, I am occasionally freepmailed by participants here, and not always by those altogether friendly to myself, yet don't try to use that as some sort of open forum, debating tactic weapon.

[verga]

As it is, I am occasionally freepmailed by participants here, and not always by those altogether friendly to myself, yet don't try to use that as some sort of open forum, debating tactic weapon.

Interesting, you say this to Thales, but in post #270 you said that you had permission to say anything, and in your unsolicited freepmail to me you felt free to spout off.

[BlueDragon]

WHat's your problem?

in post #270 you said that you had permission to say anything..."

No. I didn't put it quite like that...

Should I freepmail it to you underlining the differences?

I still have a copy on the desktop.

What I did was deny the request, reminding you that we may some day meet face to face, and I wouldn't [or need to] be asking for permission to speak then, for in fact I already have something of an invite, from you.

If I'm now being forced to address how you are rewording what I did say (making it into something else yet again) then the comment which was deleted should be restored.

As for the bolded portion, I could say "I'm just following your lead", but it's more like I'm not willing to just sit back and allow yourself to manipulate and take advantage of the moderators and the policies of this forum, referencing contents of deleted comments, and freepmail which wasn't anything worse than what you frequently say to others here, or else accuse in generalized terms that "protestants" are guilty of, etc., without yourself paying a price for doing so, myself hoping maybe some one will eventually catch on to the game-playing, and ultimately, put a stop to it.

[BlueDragon]

There are other contributors at "trialblogue" but that particular article of fairly recent date (Wednesday, May 27, 2015) is apparently courtesy of John Bugay (sure to be a favorite of our FRomish FRiends? lol).

Here again the first, and last of what you'd cited here, originating from http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/05/13-things-you-didnt-know-about-papacy.html;

In 150 AD, a contemporary writer, in “The Shepherd of Hermas”, confirms that the Roman church is still overseen by a plurality of “elders”. Moreover, these “elders” fought among themselves and brought scandal to the church.

... ... ...

We’ve seen Jesus admonish this behavior when the disciples themselves “argued among themselves as to who was greatest”. Nor does Hermas attribute any gift of “infallibility” to these elders, who themselves “have no instruction”.

From Papal Infallibility: A Protestant Evaluation of an Ecumenical Issue Mark E. Powell p. 136

In Revelation and the Quest for Unity Dulles argues the conception of tradition as something "passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth, or at least by some channel other than the canonical Scriptures" was avoided at Vatican II and is problematic for at least three reasons;

In the first place, it involves a deus ex machina. The existence of these alleged traditions cannot be verified by historical evidence, but is postulated for the sake of of the argument. Secondly, the thesis is actually contrary to all probability. It is almost incredible that if the early fathers had known all these fact they would have written so vaguely about the Sacraments, about Mary, etc....Finally, even if we did grant the existence of such traditions in apostolic times, contrary to all appearances, it is most difficult to see how they can be utilized by the modern Church as doctrinal sources. A tradition cannot be valid source unless it's existence and contents can be established with some assurance. [Avery Dulles, Revelation and the Quest for Unity Washington, DC: Corpus Books, 1968), p.75]

---

from

deus ex machina

( Latin: “god from the machine”) a person or thing that appears or is introduced into a situation suddenly and unexpectedly and provides an artificial or contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty.

The term was first used in ancient Greek and Roman drama, where it meant the timely appearance of a god to unravel and resolve the plot. The deus ex machina was named for the convention of the god’s appearing in the sky, an effect achieved by means of a crane (Greek: mēchanē). The dramatic device dates from the 5th century bc; a god appears in Sophocles’ Philoctetes and in most of the plays of Euripides to solve a crisis by divine intervention.

Since ancient times, the phrase has also been applied to an unexpected saviour or to an improbable event that brings order out of chaos (e.g., the arrival, in time to avert tragedy, of the U.S. cavalry in a western film).

---

But somehow..."sola scriptura" is the enemy, to be defeated(!)

Scripture as over-arching guide & rule to our faith, by which tradition itself need be evaluated to help stem tide of abuses, wherever those arise within the Christian Church, and what's the response of those with which we here often contend --- sola scriptura delenda est?

It's not as if within Scripture there is no room or space made for revelation, but that true revelation won't go against what the Scriptures well enough show. Proper governance of church body is discussed also, with no where really to be found there be one single bishop as head over all others. Pretty much anybody could be corrected, and if not receiving that when it when due and proper --- be removed, cast out.

Yet when the cry is as Sola Scriptura delenda est what is it that is being declared enemy, and what is it which seeks to take it's place?

IN CONTEXT /Subject to the Roman Pontiff Article #30

[verga]

You NEVER had permission form me to contact me through freepmail, and even if you had that permission was rescinded the moment I requested that you not.

[BlueDragon]

You NEVER had permission form[sic] me to contact me through freepmail

I didn't say that you had said so. So why even shout that out?

Too much coffee, maybe? I have that problem at times. ;^)

But [Roman] Catholics occasionally have contacted me that way. Sometimes what would be said there would be decent enough, occasionally at other times, not so much.

[verga]

I didn't say that you had said so. So why even shout that out?

Your words: "I had it anyway." (referring to permission)

Nice try twisting facts.

[metmom]

[BlueDragon]

Nice try twisting facts.

No, the twisting is again, all yours .

The "I had it anyway" was provisional to out-side of forum, but not inclusive of the internal mail system here.

[Syncro]

Yes I have too.

Talking to someone and discerning some form of spirituality, I ask are you a Christian?

From Catholics I would hear, No, I’m a Catholic.

Catholicism puts more emphasis on men’s traditions than the Bible and Jesus.

Speaking of which, Mary is more and more the central figure of Catholicism.

[verga]

Provisional from whom? Certainly not me.