JMAN05:

Compare the Alzog's Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte (9th ed. 1872) with the Gerarchia Cattolica listing. it is glaring that there is a disharmony.

Statements of church writers are entirely irreconcilable, and it is impossible to establish with any degree of certainty the order in which they follow each other, yrs of accession, and even yrs of death.

You are a very wicked man!! See as you give me work. I've trawled the internet looking for the lists. I read references to the book but I've only found one list. That of the Alzog's handbuch whatever. I'll paste it below. I wanted to compare the lists by putting them parallel to each other. Anyway, no wahala. (since you have been reluctant to produce the lists yourself would that suggest that you yourself haven't compared the lists but rather you just read an accusation on some website and swallowed it hook line and sinker? That is not an issue anyway, just a thought that occurred to me.)

I could only find one list but I found other things about the books. First this:

The Roman "Gerarchia Cattolica", not an authoritative work, which prior to 1906 contained a chronological list of the popes, designated Alexander V as the 211th pope, succeeding Gregory XII, resigned.

From here: https://www.wordnik.com/words/Gerarchia

How do you compare an authoritative work to a non authoritative work and then claim something dubious when they don't tally?

Then I found this:

Owing, chiefly, to the fact that during what is called the Great Schism of the West, there were sometimes several claimants to the Holy See, only one of whom could be the lawful successor of St. Peter, authorities differ concerning the correct list of the Popes. Some reckon that Pius XI is the two hundred and sixty-first successor of St. Peter. –Joseph Deharbe, S.J., A Complete Catechism of the Catholic Religion, Sixth American Edition, © 1912/1919/1924 Scwartz, Kirwin & Fauss, p. 68; Book has Nihil Obstat of Very Rev. Edmund T. Shanahan, D.D., Catholic University of America; and Imprimitur of John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

from here: http://www.lazyboysreststop.org/pope-20.htm

This suggests that the discrepancies occurred at much later dates that what we are talking about. We are talking about the early church, especially about the immediate successors to Peter.

But having said all that, That is not really the part of this discussion that interests me.
[size=16pt]
Please, ejor, Is it the matter of discrepancies in the lists that is the basis of your rejection of catholicism and the Apostolic succession? Please explain to me why a discrepancies must necessarily mean that the whole issue is false and must be discarded. thank you. [/size]

The following is the lists of popes that I found online from the Alzog Handbuch:



1. St. Peter, M... Bethsaida in Galilee 42-67

2. St. Linus, M... Volterra...   67-78

3. St. Cletus, M... Rome... 78-90

4. St. Clement I, M… Rome… 90-100

5. St. Anacletus, M…Athens… 100-112

6. St. Evaristus, M… Syria…112-121

7. St. Alexander I, M… Rome… 121-132

8. St. Sixtus I. M… Rome… 132-142

9. St. Telesphorus, M… Greece… 142-154

10. St. lyginlus, M… Greece… 154-158

11. St. Pius I, M… Aquileja … 158-167

12. St. Anicetus, M… Syria… 167-175

13. St. Soterus, M…Campania… 175-182

14. St. Eleutherius, M… Epirus… 182-193

15. St. Victor I, M… Africa… 193-203

16. St. Zephyrinns, M… Rome… 203-220

17. St. Calixtus I, M… Rome… 221-227

18. St. Urban I, M… Rome… 227-233

19. St. Pontianus, M… Rome… 233-238

20. St. Anterus, M… Greece…238-239

21. St. Fabian, M… Rome… 240-253

22. St. Cornelius, M… Rome… 254-255 [Novatian, first antipope.]

23. St. Lucius I, M… Rome… 255-257

24. St. Stephen I, M… Rome… 257-260

25. St. Sixtus II, M… Athens… 260-261

26. St. Dionysius… Italy… 261-272

27. St. Felix I. M… Rome… 272-275

28. St. Eltychianus… Tuscany… 225-283

29. St. Caius, M… Dalmatia… 283-296

30. St. Marcellinus, M… Rome… 296-304

31. St. Miarcellus I, M… Rome…304-309

32. St. Esebius… Calabria… 309-311

33. St. Melchiades…. Africa… 311-314

34. St. Sylvester… Rome… 314-337

35. St. Malrcus… Rome… 337-340

36. St. Jillius I… Rome… 341-352

37. St. Liberius… Rome… 352-363

38. St. Felix II… Rome… 363-365

39. St. Darnass... Spain... 366-384 [Ursicinus, antipope.]

40. St. Siricius... Rome... 384-398

41. St. Anastasius... Rome… 399-402

42. St. Innocet I... Albano... 402-417

43. St. Zosim... Greece... 417-418

44. St. Boniface I... Rome... 418-423

45. St. Celestine I... Campania... 423-432

46. St. Sixts III... Rome... 432-440

47. St. Leo I, the Great... Tuscany... 440-461

48. St. Hilary... Cagilari... 461-468

49. St. Simplicius... Tivoli... 468483

50. St. Felix II... Rome... 483492

51. St. Gelasius I... Africa... 492-496

52. St Anastasius II... Rome... 496-498

53. St. Symnachus... Rome... 498-514

54. St. Hormisdas... Frosinone... 514-523

55. St. John I, M... Tuscany... 523-526

56. St. Felix IV... Benevet... 526-530

57. Boniface II... Rome...       530-532

58. John II... Rome... 532-535

59. St. Agapetus I... Rome... 535-536

60. St. Sylverius, M... Frosinone... 536-538

61. Vigilius... Rome... 538-555

62. Pelagius I... Rome... 555-560

63. John III... Rome... 560-573

64. Benedict I... Rome... 574-578

65. Pelagius II... Rome... 578-590

66. St. Gregory I, the Great. Rome... 50-604

67. Sabiniaus... Volterra... 604-606

68. Boniface III... Rome... 607-607

69. St. Boniface IV... The Marches... 608-615

70. St. Adeodatus I... Rome... 615-619

71. Boniface V... Naples... 619-625

72. Honorins I... Campania... 625-638

73. Severinus... Rome... 640-640

74. John IV... Dalmatia... 640-642

75. Theodorus I... Greece... 642-649

76. St. Martin, M... Todi... 649-655

77. St. Engenius I... Rome... 655-656

78. St. Vitalianus... Segi... 657-672

79. Adeodatus II... Rome... 672-676

80. Donus I... Rome... 676-678

81. St. Agathon... Greece... 678-682

82. St. Leo II... Sicily... 682-683

83. St. Benedict II... Rome... 684-685

84. John V... Antiochia... 685-686

85. Conon... Thrace... 686-687

86. St. Sergis I... ?... 687-701

87. John VI... Greece... 701-705

88. John VII... Greece... 705-707

89. Sisinnius... Syria... 708-708

90. Constantine... Syria... 708-715

91. St. Gregory II... Rome... 715-731

92. St. Gregory III... Syria... 731-741

93. St. Zachary... Greece... 741-752

94. St. Stephen II... Rome... 752-752

95. Stephen III... Rome... 752-757

96. St. Paul I... Rome... 757-767

97. Stephen IV... Syracuse... 768-771

98. Adrian I... Rome... 771-795

99. St. Leo III... Rome ... 795-816

100. Stephen V... Rome... 816-817

101. St. Paschal I... Rome... 817-824

102. Eugenius II... Rome... 824-827

103. Valentiuns... Rome... 827-827

104. Gregory IV... Rome... 827-844

105. Sergius II... Rome... 844-847

106. St. Leo IV... Rome... 847-855 [Fabulous antipope Joan.]

107. Benedict III... Rome... 855-858

108. St. Nicholas I, the Great… Rome... 858-867

109. Adrian II... Rome... 867-872

110. John VIII... Rome... 872-882

111. Marinus I... Gallese...     882-884

112. Adrian III... Rome... 884-885

113. Stephen VI... Rome... 885-891

114. Formosus... Ostia... 891-896 [Sergius, antipope.]

115. Boniface VI... Rome... 896-96

116. Stephen VII... Rome... 897-898

117. Romanus... Gallese... 898-898

118. Theodorus II... Gallese...  898-898

119. John IX... Tivoli... 898-900

120. Benedict IV... Rome... 900-903

121. Leo V... Ardea... 903-903

122. Christopher... Rome... 903-904

123. Sergius III... Rome... 904-911

124. Anastasius III... Rome... 911-913

125. Lando... Sabine... 913-914

126. John X... Ravenna... 915-928

127. Leo VI... Rome... 928-929

128. Stephen VIII... Rome... 929-931

129. John XI... Rome... 931-936

130. Leo VII... Rome... 936-939

131. Stephen IX... Rome... 939-942

132. Marinus II... Rome... 943-946

133. Agapetus II... Rome... 946-956

134. John XI*... Rome... 956-964 (Octavian Conti.) [Leo 8:antipope.]

135. Benedict V... Rome... 964-965

136. John XIII... Rome... 96S-972 (Bishop John of Ravenna.)

137. Benedict VI... Rome... 972-973

138. Donus II... Rome... 973-975

139. Benedict VII... Rome ... 975-984 (Conti, bishop of Sutri.)

140. John XIV... Pavia... 984-985 (Peter, bishop of Pavia.)

141. Boniface VII... ?...        985-985 (Cardinal Boniface Franco.)

142. John XV... Rome... 985-996

143. John XVI... ... 996-996

144. Gregory V... Germany... 996-999 (Bruno, court chaplain of the emperor.)

145. John XVI... ?... 999-999

146. Sylvester II... France... 999-1003 (Gerbert.) * The first pope who changed his name on ascending the papal throne.

147. John XVIII... Rome... 1003-1003

148. John XIX... Rome... 1003-1009

149. Sergius IV... Rome... 1009-1012

150. Benedict VIII... Rome... 1012-1024 (Conti.)

151. John XX... Rome... 1024-1033 (Conti, a brother of the preceding.)

152. Benedict IX ... Rome... 1033-1044 (Theophylact, nephew of the two preceding.) [Sylvester, antipope.]

153. Gregory VI... Rome... 1044-1046 (Archpriest John Gratianus.)

154. Clement II... Germany... 1046-1048 (Bishop Suidger of Bamlberg.)

155. Damasus II... Germany... 1048-1048 (Bishop Pappo of Brixen.)

156. St. Leo IX... Germany... 1049-1055 (Bishop Bruno of Toul.)

157. Victor II... Germany... 1055-1057 (Bishop Gebhard of Eichstidt.)

158. Stephen X... Germany... 1057-1058 (Abbot Frederick of Montecassino.)

159. Benedict X... .?... 1058-1059 (John Mincius Conti, bishop of Velletri.)

160. Nicholas II... France... 1059-1061 (Bishop Gerard of Florence.)

161. Alexander II... Milan... 1061-1073 (Anselm Badagio, bishop of Lucca.)

162. St. Gregory VII... Soana... 1073-1085 (Cardinal Hildebrand.) [Clement III, antipope.]

163. Victor III... Benevent... 1087-1087 (Desiderius, duke of Capua, abbot of Montecassino.)

164. Urban II... France... 1088-1099 (Otto de Lagers, cardinal-bishop of Ostia.)

165. Paschal II... Bieda... 1099-1118 (Cardinal Rainer.) [Albert and Theodoric, antipopes.]

166. Gelasius II... Gaeta... 1... 1118-1119 (Cardinal Johannes Cajetani.)

167. Calixtus II... France...1119-1124 (Guido, count of Burgundy, archbishop of Vienne.)

168. Honorius II... Bologna... 1124-1130 (Lambert, cardinal-bishop of Ostia.)

169. Innocent I... Rome... 1130-1143 (Cardinal Glegory Papy.) [Anacletus, antipope.]

170. Celestine II... Citta di Castello... 1143-1144

171. Lucius II... Bologna... 1144-1145 (Cacciauemici)

172. B. Eugenius III... Montemagno... 1145-1153 (Bernardus, abbot at Rome.)

173. Anastasius IV... Rome... 1153-1154

174. Adrian IV... England... 1154-1159

175. Alexander III... Siena... 1159-1181 (Roland Bandinelli.) [Victor, Paschal, and Callixtus, antipopes.]

176. Lncius III... Lucca... 1181-1185

177. Urban III... Milan... 1185-1187 (Bishop Humbert of Milan.)

178. Gregory VII... Beneventum... 1187-1187

179. Clemelnt III... Rome... 1187-1191

180. Celestinie III... Rome... 1191-1198

181. Innocent III... Anagni. ... .1198-1216 (Cardinal Conti.)

182. Honorius III... Rome... 1216-1227 (Savelli.)

183. Gregoury IX... An agni... 1227-1241 (Conti.)

184. Celestine IV... Milan... 1241-1241 (Castislione.)

185. Innocent IV... Genoa... 1243-1254 (Fieschi.)

186. Alexander IV... Anagni... .1254-1261 (Conti.)

187. Urban IV... France... 1261-1264 (Jacob Pantalean, patriarch of Jerusalem.)

188. Clement IV... France... 1265-1269 (Guido Fulcodi.)

189. B. Gregory X... Piacenza... 1271-1276 (Theobald Visconti, archdeacon at Liuge.)

190. Innocent V... ... Savoy... 1276-1276 (Peter de Tarantaise.)

191. Adrian V... Genoa... 1276-1276 (Fieschi.)

192. John XXI... Portugal... 1276-1277 (Peter Julian, bishop of Tusculum.)

193. Nicholas III... Rome... 1277-1280 (Cardinal John Cajetan Orfini.)

194. Martin IV... France... 1281-1285 (Simon de Brie.)

195. Honorius IV... Rome... 1285-1287 (Savelli.)

196. Nicholas IV... A... Ascoli... .1288-1292 (Cardinal Jerome, bishop of Tusculum.)

197. St. Celestine V... Isenia... .1294-1294 (Peter, an eremite.)

198. Boniface VIII... Anagni... 1294-1303 (Benedict Cajetan.)

199. B. Benedict XI... Treviso... 1303-1304 (Boccasini.)

200. Clement V... France... 1305-1314 (De Gout, archbishop of Bordeaux.)

201. John XXII... France... 1316-1334 (Cardinal Jacob de Esne.) [Nicholas, antipope.]

202. Benedict XII... France... 1334-1342 (Cardinal Jacob Fournier.)

203. Clement VI... France... 1342-1352 (Cardinal Peter Roger.)

204. Innocent VI... France... .1352-1362 (Cardinal Stephen Aubert.)

205. B. Urban V... France... 1362-1370 (Abbot at Marseilles.)

206. Gregory XI... France... 1370-1378 (Cardinal Peter Roger.)

207. Urban VI... Naples... 1378-1389 (Prignano, archbishop of Bari.) [From 1378 to 1410 occurs the great Western Schism, during which, in conflict with the line of popes inserted in the catalogue, is found a rival line residing at Avignon-Clement VII 1378-1394; Benedict XIII 1394-1410. The Council of Pisa, 1410, deposed both rival popes; but Benedict XIII remained in schism till his death in 1424.]

208. Boniface IX... Naples... 1389-1404 (Cardinal Peter Tomacelli.)

209. Innocent VII... Sulmona... .1404-1406 (Migliorati.)

210. Gregory XII... Venice... 1406-1409 (Coriario.)

211. Alexander V... Bologna... 1409-1410 (Cardinal Peter Philargi.)

212. John XXIII... Naples... 1410-1415 (Cardinal Cossa.)

213. Martin V... Rome... 1417-1431 (Cardinal Otto Colonna.)

214. Eugenius IV... Venice... 1431-1447 (Condulmero.) [Felix, antipope.]

215. Nicholas V... Sarzana... .1447-1455 (Thomas de Sarzano.)

216. Calixtus III... Spain... 1455-1458 (Cardinal Alphons Borgia.)

217. Pius II... Sieia... 1458-1464 (AEneas Sylvius Piccolomini.)

218. Paul II... Venice... 1464-1471 (Barbo.)

219. Sixtus IV... Savona... 1471-1484 (Cardinal Francesco della Rovere.)

220. Innocent VIII... Genoa... 1484-1492 (Cardinal John Baptist Cibo.)

221. Alexander VI... Spain... .1492-1503 (Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia.)

222. Pius III... Siena... 1503-1503 (Cardinal Francis Piccolomini.)

223. Julius II... Savona...1503-1513 (Cardinal Rovere.)

224. Leo X... Florence... 1513-1521 (Cardinal de' Medici.)

225. Adrian VI... Netherlands... 1522-1523 (Adrian Florent.)

226. Clement VII... Florence... 1523-1534 (Cardinal de' Medici.)

227. Paul III... Rome... 1534-1549 (Cardinal Alexander Farnese.)

228. Julius III... Tuscany... 1550-1555 (Cardinal del Monte.)

229. Marcellus II... Montepulciano... 1555-1555 (Cardinal Cervino.)

230. Paul IV... Naples... 1555-1559 (Cardinal Caraffa.)

231. Pius IV... Milan... 1559-1565 (Cardinal de' Medici.)

232. St. Pins V... Bosco... 1566-1572 (Michael Ghisleri, cardinal of Alessandria.)

233. Gregory XIII... Bologna... 1572-1585 (Cardinal Hugo Buoncompagno.)

234. Sixtus V... Marchigiano... 1585-1590 (Felix Peretti, cardinal Montalto.)

235. Urban VII... Rome... 1590-1590 (Cardinal Castagna.)

236. Gregory XIV... Cremona... 1590-1591 (Cardinal Sondrati.)

237. Innocent IX... Bologna... 1591-1592 (Cardinal Fachinetti.)

238. Clement VIII... Florence... 1592-1605 (Cardinal Aldobrandini.)

239. Leo XI... Florence... 1605-1605 (Cardinal Octavian de' Medici.)

240. Paul V... Rome... 1605-1621 (Cardinal Camillo Borghese.)

241. Gregory XV... Bologna... 1621-1623 (Cardinal Alexander Ludovisio.)

242. Urban VIII... Florence... 1623-1644 (Cardinal Maffeo Barberini.)

243. Innocent X... Rome... 1644-1655 (Cardinal John Pamfili.)

244. Alexander VII... Siena... 1655-1667 (Cardinal Fabio Chigi.)

245. Clement IX... Pistoia... 1667-1669 (Cardinal Rospigliosi.)

246. Clement X... Rome ... .1670-1676 (Cardinal Altieri.)

247. Innocent XI... Cono... 1676-1689 (Cardinal Benedict Odescalchi.)

248. Alexander VIII... Venice... 1689-1691 (Cardinal Peter Ottoboni.)

249. Innocent XII... Naples... .1691-1700 (Cardinal Anthony Pignatelli.)

250. Clement XI... Urbino... 1700-1721 (Cardinal Albani.)

251. Innocent XIII... Rome... 1721-1724 (Cardinal Conti.)

252. Benedict XIII... Rome... 1724-1730 (Cardinal Orsini.)

253. Clement XII... Floence... 1730-1740 (Cardinal Colsini.)

254. Benedict XIV... Bologna... .1740-1758 (Cardinal Prosper Lambertini.)

255. Clement XIII... Venice... 1758-1769 (Cardinal Rezzonico.)

256. Clement XIV... St. Angelo in Vado…1769-1774 (Cardinal Gianganelli.)

257. Pius VI... Cesena... 1775-1799 (Cardinal Braschi.)

258. Pius VII... Cesena... 1800-1823 (Cardinal Chiaramonte.)

259. Leo XII... Spoleto... 1823-1829 (Cardinal della Genga.)

260. Pius VIII... Cingoli... .1829-1830 (Cardinal Castiglione.)

261. Gregory XVI... Belluno... 1831-1846 (Cardinal Mauro Capellari.)

262. Pius IX... Siniagli... 1846-1878 (Cardinal Mastai Ferretti.)

263. Leo XIII... Carpinetto... 1878 (Cardinal Gioacchino Pesci.)

https://bible.prayerrequest.com/7914-mcclintock-john-strong-james-cyclopedia/39315/


Regards.

Question: "Is apostolic succession biblical?"

Answer: The doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed the apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing throughout the centuries, even unto today. The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the leader of the apostles, with the greatest authority, and therefore his successors carry on the greatest authority. The Roman Catholic Church combines this belief with the concept that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed Peter were accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. Apostolic succession, combined with Peter’s supremacy among the apostles, results in the Roman bishop being the supreme authority of the Catholic Church – the Pope.

However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray (Galatians 2:11-14). Yes, the apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles (although the book of Acts records the apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James as also having prominent leadership roles). Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors.

Catholics point to Matthias being chosen to replace Judas as the twelfth apostle in Acts chapter 1 as an example of apostolic succession. While Matthias did indeed “succeed” Judas as an apostle, this is in no sense an argument for continuing apostolic succession. Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church replacing ungodly and unfaithful leaders (such as Judas) with godly and faithful leaders (such as Matthias). Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). What is the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the record of the deeds and teachings of the apostles. The church does not need apostolic successors. The church needs the teachings of the apostles accurately recorded and preserved. And that is exactly what God has provided in His Word (Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15; 4:2).

In short, apostolic succession is not biblical. The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. The Roman Catholic Church claims that a lack of ongoing apostolic authority results in doctrinal confusion and chaos. It is an unfortunate truth (that the apostles acknowledged) that false teachers would arise (2 Peter 2:1). Admittedly, the lack of “supreme authority” among non-Catholic churches results in many different interpretations of the Bible. However, these differences in interpretation are not the result of Scripture being unclear. Rather, they are the result of even non-Catholic Christians carrying on the Catholic tradition of interpreting Scripture in accordance with their own traditions. If Scripture is studied in its entirety and in its proper context, the truth can be easily determined. Doctrinal differences and denominational conflicts are a result of some Christians refusing to agree with what Scripture says – not a result of there being no “supreme authority” to interpret Scripture.

Alignment with scriptural teaching, not apostolic succession, is the determining factor of the trueness of a church. What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the Word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared with (Acts 17:10-12). Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/apostolic-succession.html#ixzz3Ej3UjlnB

JMAN05:

I gave you a commentary on that, and you want me to believe you by faith when I have a prove?

sorry dear, your commentary got it wrong!

The writtings of augustine are there if you want to read them, he didn't reject anything.

But ofcourse, i guess you prefer to read your incorrect "commentary" on augustine instead of reading what augustine himself wrote.

Ubenedictus:

sorry dear, your commentary got it wrong!

The writtings of augustine are there if you want to read them, he didn't reject anything.

But ofcourse, i guess you prefer to read your incorrect "commentary" on augustine instead of reading what augustine himself wrote.

You ve never shown any prove that he didnt make a retraction. You just made a statement that you want me to believe by faith. Sorry. case closed till you tender your evidence.

JMAN05:

You ve never shown any prove that he didnt make a retraction. You just made a statement that you want me to believe by faith. Sorry. case closed till you tender your evidence.

Please, JMAN05, does a contradictory pair of lists mean there is no apostolic succession.

TERTULLIAN HAD THIS TO SAY TO THE LIKES OF OLADDEGBU IN THE SECOND CENTURY


if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter
In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.

http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/tertullian_on_apostolic_tradition.htm

JMAN05:

You ve never shown any prove that he didnt make a retraction. You just made a statement that you want me to believe by faith. Sorry. case closed till you tender your evidence.

actually dear,
i believe the onus is on you to prove that he made a retraction.


If you say he retracted provide it.

You are a very wicked man!! See as you give me work. I've trawled the internet looking for the lists. I read references to the book but I've only found one list. That of the Alzog's handbuch whatever. I'll paste it below. I wanted to compare the lists by putting them parallel to each other. Anyway, no wahala. (since you have been reluctant to produce the lists yourself would that suggest that you yourself haven't compared the lists but rather you just read an accusation on some website and swallowed it hook line and sinker? That is not an issue anyway, just a thought that occurred to me.)

The discussion is with a Catholic in mind. If you are Catholic, I know searching for it wont be hard, and you may possibly have known about what am saying. Are you a Catholic?

The fact that you do not know the name of the list you brought is a good reason for you to know that I didnt 'read and swallow hook line and sinker.'

I could only find one list but I found other things about the books. First this:

The Roman "Gerarchia Cattolica", not an authoritative work, which prior to 1906 contained a chronological list of the popes, designated Alexander V as the 211th pope, succeeding Gregory XII, resigned.From here:https://www.wordnik.com/words/Gerarchia

How do you compare an authoritative work to a nonauthoritative work and then claim something dubious when they don't tally?

What is found in an almanac is not authoritative? Of course the publication is a fabrication that cant be relied on. Even Roman historians choose not to adopt it. Mc&Strong's encyclopedia.

This does not mean that Roman catholics dont view it as authoritative as of then. That list could have come about after the "handbuch" listing.

[b]This suggests that the discrepancies occurred at much later dates that what we are talking about. We are talking about the early church, especially about the immediate successors to Peter.[/quote]

Nah nah! The two publications were not written by two authorities, but all issued from Rome. The Handbuch seem to be written after the schism, and it obviously came before the Cattolica. Got it?

Please, ejor, Is it the matter of discrepancies in the lists that is the basis of your rejection of catholicism and the Apostolic succession? Please explain to me why a discrepancies must necessarily mean that the whole issue is false and must be discarded. thank you.

If you had faithfully followed the discussion, you would find out that I said that the so called apostolic fathers do not all have one belief, even on the issue of Pope. This is to let my other friend know that whatever the so called apostolic father's claim to believe must be calibrated by the scriptures so as not to be deceived. There words are not infallible, and never would it gain the type of trust we assign to God's word, the bible.

He was like making much issue out of the writing of "apostolic fathers". And I went on to tell him that even the so called fathers do not all agree on one thing. Which falls back to my point that something should serve as weighing balance to detect fraud and corruption which even Jesus admits will infiltrate the congregation.

So the list's discripancy is a prove that they do not all agree even on the issue of pope. I ve also shown that even what you call Pope today was not known by Jesus' apostles. They all had equal authority. But what we see today is a result of corruption. Remember we ve not even entered into discussing those dates they fabricated in that list.

The following is the lists of popes that I found online from the Alzog Handbuch:

That's not the handbuch, but the cattolica.

In the cattolica, from st. Esebus... calabria you start to see a deviation.

The fifth name in the Handbuch is "St".Evaristus not Anacletus.

Look at them listing that Peter was Pope for 25yrs, ask there modern scholars, they will shame that claim.

yet the infallible apostolic fathers, Eusebus and Jerome supported that claim. But it is now known to be impossible.

Did you also noticed that among there so called popes, some were not even saints? Yet they were fixed to fulfill all righteousness.

The list you brought said Felix II was a saint, but is said in the Handbuch that he isn't a saint.

Should I even go on to expose that the so called claim that there were no broken line of popes is a sham?

It is purely a waste of time to start showing how deep apostasy affected the "church".

PastorAIO:

Please, JMAN05, does a contradictory pair of lists mean there is no apostolic succession.

The scriptures do not support that claim. If such were attainable, Jesus apostle John, even Paul was alive to assume the sit of pope, not Linus. Of course, they do not know, nor do their writing show that any hierarchy existed amongst them.

Imagine Paul rebuking the infallible pope Peter. Just imagine Paul rebuking Jesus on a religious matter. How is that?

#exhales# This Is Kwaite Intresting

Mike and Gloria Bamiloye (Mount Zion) debut India's first Gospel Movie 'Rupantar' - http://www.remspot.com.ng/2014/09/mike-and-gloria-bamiloye-mount-zion.html

vest: #exhales# This Is Kwaite Intresting

hehehehehe....

Over interesting, i refused to even touch those posts.

cktheluckyman:


TERTULLIAN HAD THIS TO SAY TO THE LIKES OF OLADDEGBU IN THE SECOND CENTURY


if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter
In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.

http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/tertullian_on_apostolic_tradition.htm

The feelings are mutual.