|
|
Post by watchman on May 4, 2009 14:34:09 GMT -5
There is no official list of popes, but the Annuario Pontificio, published every year by the Vatican, contains a list that is generally considered to be the most authoritative. Its list is the one given here. The Annuario Pontificio list gives Benedict XVI as the 265th pope of Rome.
While the term Pope (Latin: papa "father'") is used in several Churches to denote their high spiritual leaders (for example Coptic Pope), this title in English usage can by itself refer to the head of the Catholic Church. The title itself has been used officially by the head of the Catholic Church since the tenure of Pope Siricius, although it has been first used by the Copts centuries earlier.
Hermannus Contractus may have been the first historian to number the popes continuously. His list ends in 1049 with Pope Leo IX as number 154. In 2001 a rigorous study was made by the Catholic Church into the history of the papacy.[1] Based on that research, in 2008 there have been 265 Popes and 267 pontificates. The difference can be attributed to the fact that Benedict IX reigned three different times between 1032 and 1048.
Several changes have been made in the list during the 20th century. Antipope Christopher was considered legitimate for a long time. Pope-elect Stephen was considered legitimate under the name Stephen II until the 1961 edition and erased then. Although these changes are no longer controversial, a number of modern lists still include this "first Pope Stephen II". It is probable that this is because they are based on the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which is in the public domain.
I do not think this is confirmation that Peter was the first Pope
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on May 4, 2009 15:51:50 GMT -5
There is no official list of popes, but the Annuario Pontificio, published every year by the Vatican, contains a list that is generally considered to be the most authoritative. Its list is the one given here. The Annuario Pontificio list gives Benedict XVI as the 265th pope of Rome. While the term Pope (Latin: papa "father'") is used in several Churches to denote their high spiritual leaders (for example Coptic Pope), this title in English usage can by itself refer to the head of the Catholic Church. The title itself has been used officially by the head of the Catholic Church since the tenure of Pope Siricius, although it has been first used by the Copts centuries earlier. Hermannus Contractus may have been the first historian to number the popes continuously. His list ends in 1049 with Pope Leo IX as number 154. In 2001 a rigorous study was made by the Catholic Church into the history of the papacy.[1] Based on that research, in 2008 there have been 265 Popes and 267 pontificates. The difference can be attributed to the fact that Benedict IX reigned three different times between 1032 and 1048. Several changes have been made in the list during the 20th century. Antipope Christopher was considered legitimate for a long time. Pope-elect Stephen was considered legitimate under the name Stephen II until the 1961 edition and erased then. Although these changes are no longer controversial, a number of modern lists still include this "first Pope Stephen II". It is probable that this is because they are based on the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which is in the public domain. I do not think this is confirmation that Peter was the first PopeThe Catholic Church also claims there have been several black popes ...which can't be proven either. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 4, 2009 16:10:40 GMT -5
really? When did they claim this? Proof?
Im curious of it anyhow. Never heard it said, yet it prolly never was an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 4, 2009 16:18:24 GMT -5
Yeah, sounds like a rumor...i just tried to google it and came up with nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 10:48:51 GMT -5
Just like cepha said anything I call history that i post he can find history to oppose it, . Uh, uh, uh...quote me correctly...I said that anything you find from a "biased" site I can use a biased site to oppose!  But what I also said is that secular historical facts from unbiased sources cannot be miscontrued by either party. They are just nuetral facts...like the nuetral historical fact that Saint Peter was the first Pope of The Catholic Church. That is without question a secular belief. And I used a secular (non-Catholic unbiased) site to prove it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 10:57:29 GMT -5
Just like cepha said anything I call history that i post he can find history to oppose it, and that goes both ways. anything you claim to be historical fact, I can find a historical fact to disprove it. Then post something from a secular historical book that disagree what I said. What "historical" facts do you have watchman? The Entire Early Church (1st-10th Century), Ancient Historians/Scholars and many modern Protestant Scholars/Historians agree that Saint Peter was the first bishop of Rome. In IC.XC, Ramon How's about quoting The Church Fathers that you believe are "not" Catholic? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 11:02:56 GMT -5
Then post something from a secular historical book that disagree what I said. What "historical" facts do you have watchman? The Entire Early Church (1st-10th Century), Ancient Historians/Scholars and many modern Protestant Scholars/Historians agree that Saint Peter was the first bishop of Rome. In IC.XC, Ramon I disagree with your statement that all agree that Peter was the pope. Should I also believe that all scientist agree that man is causing global warming even though many are standing up saying it is not so? Where did he say "all" in where you quoted him? I see him saying "many", but not "all". |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 11:04:42 GMT -5
There is no official list of popes, but the Annuario Pontificio, published every year by the Vatican, contains a list that is generally considered to be the most authoritative. Its list is the one given here. The Annuario Pontificio list gives Benedict XVI as the 265th pope of Rome. While the term Pope (Latin: papa "father'") is used in several Churches to denote their high spiritual leaders (for example Coptic Pope), this title in English usage can by itself refer to the head of the Catholic Church. The title itself has been used officially by the head of the Catholic Church since the tenure of Pope Siricius, although it has been first used by the Copts centuries earlier. Hermannus Contractus may have been the first historian to number the popes continuously. His list ends in 1049 with Pope Leo IX as number 154. In 2001 a rigorous study was made by the Catholic Church into the history of the papacy.[1] Based on that research, in 2008 there have been 265 Popes and 267 pontificates. The difference can be attributed to the fact that Benedict IX reigned three different times between 1032 and 1048. Several changes have been made in the list during the 20th century. Antipope Christopher was considered legitimate for a long time. Pope-elect Stephen was considered legitimate under the name Stephen II until the 1961 edition and erased then. Although these changes are no longer controversial, a number of modern lists still include this "first Pope Stephen II". It is probable that this is because they are based on the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which is in the public domain. I do not think this is confirmation that Peter was the first PopeWhat about my Brittania link where I showed you that a secular site stated that he was the first pope? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 11:10:09 GMT -5
The Catholic Church also claims there have been several black popes ...which can't be proven either. Are you serious? Where do you think that The Church operated from primarily while Rome was persecuting it? Africa. And you can't believe that there were black popes? www.holyangels.com/black.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 11:13:28 GMT -5
Pope Victor I
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pope Saint Victor I was a Pope from 189 to 199 (the Vatican cites 186 or 189 to 197 or 201).[1]
Victor I was the first bishop of Rome born in the Roman Province of Africa. He was later canonized.
Pope Saint Miltiades, also called Melchiades (Ìåë÷éÜäçò ὁ Ἀöñéêáíüò in Greek), was pope from 2 July 311 to 10 January 314.[1]
He appears to have been a Berber African by birth, but of his personal history nothing is known. He was elected after a period of sede vacante lasting from the death of Pope Eusebius on 17 August 310 or, according to others, 309, soon after Eusebius was exiled to Sicily.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 5, 2009 11:18:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 5, 2009 14:44:39 GMT -5
whatever, i dont care what nationality our popes were...thats not an issue with me
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 6, 2009 9:57:16 GMT -5
I disagree with your statement that all agree that Peter was the pope. Should I also believe that all scientist agree that man is causing global warming even though many are standing up saying it is not so? I said "MANY" (I am sure you know the difference between "many" and "all". Am I right?) modern Protestant Scholars/Historians agree that Saint Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. I also said, based on there writings and those who studied them (such as J.N.D Kelly), that all the Early Church Fathers (the entire 1,000 years of Early Church history) agree that Saint Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. Ancient Christian Historians, such as Eusebius, agree that Saint Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. I have see no evidence to suggest the contrary. You still have not given any historical proofs that disagree with I said. Perhaps you have none. You should finally admit that you have no evidence that contradicts what they all said! In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 6, 2009 10:17:50 GMT -5
whatever, i dont care what nationality our popes were...thats not an issue with me Well, it was called a lie and I proved that it isn't. We had African Popes. So no one can call us liers for stating this.  |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on May 6, 2009 11:01:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 6, 2009 11:24:22 GMT -5
I have see no evidence to suggest the contrary. You still have not given any historical proofs that disagree with I said. Perhaps you have none. You should finally admit that you have no evidence that contradicts what they all said! In IC.XC, Ramon Me neither. The standards posted on this thread still haven't been met. Just "allegations" and "personal beliefs", but no historical evidence. Again, to be anti-Catholic, one must abandon actual unbiased history. One cannot be anti-Catholic and still believe in history for they contradict each other. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 6, 2009 12:39:13 GMT -5
I have see no evidence to suggest the contrary. You still have not given any historical proofs that disagree with I said. Perhaps you have none. You should finally admit that you have no evidence that contradicts what they all said! In IC.XC, Ramon Me neither. The standards posted on this thread still haven't been met. Just "allegations" and "personal beliefs", but no historical evidence. Again, to be anti-Catholic, one must abandon actual unbiased history. One cannot be anti-Catholic and still believe in history for they contradict each other. How about this, you give me historical evidence that I am not the first people. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 6, 2009 12:59:13 GMT -5
How about this, you give me historical evidence that I am not the first people. What? What do you mean by first people?  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 6, 2009 13:12:54 GMT -5
pope
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 6, 2009 13:30:39 GMT -5
|
|
