Roland

I've been enjoying the spectacle in the last few weeks of the Catholic Church officially coming out and condemning "The Da Vinci Code" for turning the "truth" about Christ into "fiction." Wow, talk about words having no meaning. This from a church that teaches that Peter was the first Pope, that he was crucified upside down, that Mary was conceived immaculately etc. etc. etc.

I could go on, but what's the point?

My question is does anyone know where the Catholics get their evidence about papal succession? If they teach this doctrine, shouldn't they have to provide some names linking Peter to all the popes that came after him? Or is it all just made up out of hole (or is it whole?) cloth?

A thought for Easter. :angel: :devil3:

Huon

The most important source for that question is the Liber Pontificalis, Book of the Popes. It is a collection of notices about the various popes since the origin. Other sources are Catalogus Liberianus (354), Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 200). For the first popes, the dates of reign are not precise. For instance, Irenaeus (Adv. hæreses, III, iii, 3) has Linus, Anacletus, Clement ; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus.

The early evidence shows great variety. The most ancient list of popes is one made by Hegesippus in the time of Pope Anicetus, c. 160 (Harnack ascribes it to an unknown author under Soter, c. 170), cited by St. Epiphanius (Haer., xxvii, 6). It seems to have been used by St. Irenaeus (Haer., III, iii), by Julius Africanus, who composed a chronography in 222, by the third- or fourth-century author of a Latin poem against Marcion, and by Hippolytus, whose chronology extends to 234 and is probably found in the "Liberian Catalogue" of 354. That catalogue was itself adopted in the "Liber Pontificalis". Eusebius in his chronicle and history used Africanus ; in the latter he slightly corrected the dates. St. Jerome's chronicle is a translation of Eusebius’s.

The dates are approximative.

Peter (32-67)

Linus (64 or 67-76 or 79).
One century after the alleged facts, Irenaeus wrote (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) that Pope Linus is the same Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle II Timothy 4:21. Not sure at all.

Cletus or Anacletus (76-88) who could have been two different persons.

Clement I (88-97)
According to Tertullian, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and St. Jerome tells us that in his time "most of the Latins" held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (De viris illustr., xv). St. Jerome himself in several other places follows this opinion, but somewhere else he states that Clement was the fourth pope.

Notice about Clement :

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm
Short summary : Of the life and death of St. Clement nothing is known.

Evaristus (97-105)
Date of birth unknown ; died about 107. The martyrdom of Evaristus, though traditional, is not historically proven.

Alexander I (105-115)
According to a tradition extant in the Roman Church at the end of the fifth century, and recorded in the Liber Pontificalis he suffered a martyr's death by decapitation.

Sixtus I (115-125)
The "Felician Catalogue" of popes and the various martyrologies give him the title of martyr.

Telesphorus (125-136)
is mentioned as one of the Roman bishops who always celebrated Easter on Sunday, without, however, abandoning church fellowship with those communities that did not follow this custom. According to the testimony of Irenaeus (Adv. hæreses, III, iii, 3), Telesphorus suffered a glorious martyrdom.

Hyginus (136-140)
The ancient authorities contain no information as to his having died a martyr.

Pius I (140-155)
a brother of this pope, Hermas by name, published "The Shepherd".

Anicetus (155-166)
Soter (166-175)
Eleutherius (175-189)
Victor I (189-199)
Zephyrinus (199-217)

Callistus I (217-222)
Our chief knowledge of this pope is from his bitter enemies, Tertullian and the antipope Saint Hippolytus of Rome who wrote the "Philosophumena".

According to the "Philosophumena" Callistus was the slave of Carpophorus, a christian of the household of Caesar. Carpophorus entrusted large sums of money to Callistus, with which he started a bank in which brethren and widows lodged money, all of which Callistus lost (?). He took to flight. Carpophorus followed him to Portus, where Callistus had embarked on a ship. Seeing his master approach in a boat, Callistus jumped into the sea, but was prevented from drowning himself, dragged ashore, and consigned to the punishment reserved for slaves, the pistrinum, or hand-mill.

The brethren, believing that he still had money in his name, begged that he might be released. But he had nothing, so he again courted death by insulting the Jews at their synagogue. The Jews haled him before the prefect Fuscianus. Callistus was sent to the mines in Sardinia.

Some time after this, Marcia, the mistress of Commodus, sent for Pope Victor (189-199) and asked if there were any martyrs in Sardinia. He gave her the list, without including Callistus. Marcia sent a eunuch who was a priest (Hyacinth) to release the prisoners. Callistus fell at his feet, and persuaded him to take him also. Victor was annoyed ; but being a compassionate man (official explanation), he kept silence. However, he sent Callistus to Antium with a monthly allowance.

When Zephyrinus became pope (199-217), Callistus was recalled and set over the cemetery belonging to the Church, not a private catacomb ; it has ever since borne Callistus's name. He obtained great influence over the ignorant, illiterate, and grasping Zephyrinus by bribes. We are not told how it came about that the runaway slave Callistus (now free by Roman law from his master, who had lost his rights when Callistus was condemned to penal servitude to the State) became archdeacon and then pope.

And so on...

Chili

The succession of Popes sounds like a crucifixion story all of its own! There has got to be no guile in them and no wonder that truth has been maintained throughout the ages!

Chili

That Peter was crucified upside down just shows that Paul, the second Pope betrayed him and from there it was downhill all the way.