R&I – FS
Hi
Rome Cannot Historically Justify Apostolic Succession from Peter!
Rome Cannot Historically Justify Apostolic Succession from Peter, especially when all the earliest documentation are confusing as church fathers Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 180) and Hegesippus (c. 168) have Linus as the first bishop of Rome. Followed by Anacletus, then Clement and then Evaristus the 4th in succession. However, the Liber Pontificalis has Clement as 4th in succession and has Anacletus 5th in succession. Owing to Peter being added in the late 2nd or early 3rd century according to Kelly a leading patristic scholar.
In the earliest succession list for first ten Bishops of Rome.
Linus
Anacletus
Clement I
Evaristus
Alexander
Sixtus I = Xystus I
Telesphorus
Hyginus
Pius I
Anicetus. source [J.N.D. Kelly (1986), The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, pp. 5-10, Oxford University Press, London, and New York]
In the Liber Pontificalis list for first ten Bishops of Rome
Peter
Linus
Cletus
Clement I
Anencluetus
Evaristus
Alexander
Xystus I
Telesphorus
Hyginus. source [Gregory of Tours’ Book of The Popes (Liber Pontificalis)]
On papal succession, godliness was taken over by simony, nepotism, murder and all manner of things. The appointment and choice for the so-called chair of Peter were in the hands of powerful secular rulers? There is no doubting on the claim of antiquity by the Roman Church. As documentation of a decree (Law) by tripartite of Roman emperors on the 27th February 380 CE, states: “We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians.” Source, The Jesuit Fordham University N.Y.
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/theodcodeXVI.asp
This decree made Catholicism the sole religion of the western Roman empire, at the same time it outlawed or made other Christian and Pagan religions illegal within the Roman empire. Nevertheless, with the fall of Rome in 476 CE, this decree of 380 CE by right should have lost its legality and become null and void.
The term Pope (Papa) in Catholicism is an anachronism if it is used on bishops of Rome before the year 606 CE. However, the accolade for the first true pope goes to Pope Heraclas (230-46) of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, Egypt. Who was the first Patriarch to carry the hierarchy title “Pope.”
The Roman Church had to wait until 606 CE when the Byzantine emperor Phocas (602-610) fell out with his own Patriarch, Cyriacus II (?-606) of Constantinople. It was Perhaps some resentment at Cyriacus opposition to his will that may have induced Phocas to accede more readily to the claims of Pope Boniface (III) that Rome should be considered to be the head of all the church, in exclusion of the claims of Constantinople to the oecumenical bishopric (Vita Bonifacii III, in Labbe, Acta Concil. t. v. 1615).
However, Boniface was still in Byzantium in 606 CE when he was elevated bishop of Rome. Boniface returned to Rome in 607 CE to be consecrated in February and died before the year was out in November.
Scholars are still out on Peter being in Rome, besides, the consensus amongst scholars is that there was no Monarchical bishop of Rome until the 2nd half of the 2nd century. Also, it was in the late 2nd or early 3rd century that the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. [J.N.D. Kelly (1986), The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, pp. 6-7 and 32-33, Oxford University Press, London, and New York]
From church antiquity, there have been disputed papal claimants antipopes, etc., of one sort or another, were papal selection or choice of who is to be pope. Which was, for the most part, the remit of powerful secular rulers and families.
We know that at least the first six-centuries of documented popes (Liber Pontificalis) are a forgery, written by one hand in the late 6th century.
Then we have the:
Ostrogoth papacy (493-537)
Byzantine Papacy (537-752)
German Emperor’s selection of popes (1048–1257)
Avignon Papacy (1309–1377), all these papacies saw the bishops of Rome being selected by kings and emperors, etc.
Election by factions.
(One such election of the bishop of Rome by their factions was in the election of the follower of the antipope Felix II, the murderous Damasus I (366-84), who hire thugs to massacre 137 followers of his official opponent for the vacant seat of the See of Rome in 366 CE.)
Theophylcti family
Selection by Predecessors (Nepotism and the Choosing by powerful secular Rulers).
Papal selection before the 12th century saw Popes or the bishops of Rome often appointed by their predecessors or secular rulers and secular leading families of Rome.
From the Ostrogoths to the Saeculum obscurum (Dark Ages) a period in the history of the Papacy during the first half of the 10th century, beginning with the installation of Pope Sergius III in 904 and lasting for sixty years until the death of Pope John XII in 964. During this period, the Popes were influenced strongly by a powerful and corrupt aristocratic family, the Theophylacti, and their relatives. Two women, in particular, Theodora and daughter Marozia, with Theodora being the wife of Theophylact I (864–924), Count of Tusculum. Were mother and daughter held a great influence over the papal selection and religious affairs in Rome through conspiracies, affairs, and marriages during this period.
Pope Sergius III (860−911) had an adulterous affair with the Theophylcti Marozia who had a baby, who later became Pope John XI (931-5/6). However, Pope Sergius III has two of his previous popes murdered—Pope’s Christopher (903-4) and Leo V (903).
From Marizia bloodline we have a further five popes: Popes John XII (955–964), Popes John XIII (965–972), Pope Benedict VII (974-983), Pope Benedict VIII *(1012–1024), Pope John XIX* (1024–1032) and Pope Benedict IX *(1032–1048). All gained the bishopric of Rome through nepotism. See file photo above.
*These three popes are also known as the Tusculan Papacy, which was a period of papal history from 1012 to 1048 where three successive Counts of Tusculum installed themselves as popes. All three were Laymen before taking the bishopric of Rome, which the Tusculan family regarded the papacy as their own private property.[J.N.D. Kelly (1986), The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, pp. 139-144, Oxford University Press, London, and New York]
How can Rome claim Apostolic Succession when historical facts say different. As you can see one family through nepotism alone wrecks any notions of such a thing. What do you say?
Cofion
Jero Jones
Article URL : https://breakingnewsandreligion.online/discuss/