Claims about the Papacy

[CutlerB]

Dear communitiy,

after I told my mother and father that I was going to convert to Catholicism, dad sent me a link to a german radio series on the Papacy. it was hosted by a professor of “controversial theology” from Germany, who describes himself as Roman Catholic. I checked his bio and he seems to be a rather peculiar chap.

He makes claims, that to my ears sound outrageous. I would like to list them here and ask for your refutations of each claim. After reading his bio before listening to the show, I knew pretty well what I was in for, and so it came. Here are the claims he makes:

1. Matthew 16:18 is probably not an authentic saying of Jesus.
2. The Cathechism is contradictory: In one place (which he doesn’t name) it says that Jesus founded the Church on Peter’s faith, and in another one says that it was founded on peter himself.
3. Peter and James were equals in Jerusalem (see acts of the Apostles)
4. It took more than 200 years for Matthew 16:18 to be interpreted as the Primacy of Peter, as Pope.
5. We have no valid record of bishops of Rome until the end of the first century, until someone called Victor I.
6. Until the end of the second century, Rome’s Church was governed by a “presbyterium” and only later succeded by the Pope, while other regions of the Christian faith already had a bishop taking the lead.
7. All New Testament references to Peter (including his letters) were written well after Saint Peter’s death.

I’m fairly convinced he is wrong, as his bio seems really protestant-leaning to me. The problem I face is that dad seems quite taken by this man’s talks and is of the opinion I should have doubts about Catholicism.

Please help me out. Thank you and God bless.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Hello Dear Friend,

I wish you much love and joy as you journey toward the faith. With that said, many people claim to be Roman Catholic while actually believing in something else. I once had a professor claim to be Roman Catholic but was against almost every teaching of the Church. So how can one be a good and faithful Catholic if you preach against the teachings of the very church you claim to be a part of?

We have to be careful out there in the world when it comes to media. I simply would tell you to pray to the Father and ask for his wisdom in this matter. Instead of listening to a radio host of claims to be Catholic, get a Roman Catholic Catechism and research things. You cannot go wrong with the actual statement of faith for the Church.

I will keep you in my prayers as you take on this journey of faith. Hold strong and pray for Christ’s love and mercy! Go in Peace!

 

[HickmanJosh]

Here are some links from Catholic answers that should answer your questions (a heck of a lot better than i could).

Are the Gospels Myth?
catholic.com/magazine/articles/are-the-gospels-myth

Did John write his Gospel? (or did others?)
catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-john-write-his-gospel

Peter’s Authority (radio show)
catholic.com/radio/shows/peters-authority-7622

The Authority of the Pope: Part 1 (lots of quotes from the early Church)
catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i

The Authority of the Pope: Part 2
catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii

Infallibility of the Pope (8 min youtube video)
catholic.com/video/infallibility-of-the-pope

More quotes about Peter being pope…
catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope

And another radio show for your listening pleasure.
catholic.com/radio/shows/pope-fiction-4993

 

[JRKH]

Dear communitiy,

after I told my mother and father that I was going to convert to Catholicism, dad sent me a link to a german radio series on the Papacy. it was hosted by a professor of “controversial theology” from Germany, who describes himself as Roman Catholic. I checked his bio and he seems to be a rather peculiar chap.

He makes claims, that to my ears sound outrageous. I would like to list them here and ask for your refutations of each claim. After reading his bio before listening to the show, I knew pretty well what I was in for, and so it came. Here are the claims he makes:

Be sure to thank your dad for the link and then - provide him with the information you are finding here…including the links that Hickman provides above…
I cannot add muc…but…

1. Matthew 16:18 is probably not an authentic saying of Jesus.

When one starts questioning what parts of the gospels are authentic and which are not…Whee does it stop? ALL Scripture then becomes suspect…and the bible as authority collapses.

1. The Cathechism is contradictory: In one place (which he doesn’t name) it says that Jesus founded the Church on Peter’s faith, and in another one says that it was founded on peter himself.

Short answer - He founded it on both. Why do some people think that things must be one OR the other instead of one AND the other…

1. Peter and James were equals in Jerusalem (see acts of the Apostles)

This would require more specifics…

1. It took more than 200 years for Matthew 16:18 to be interpreted as the Primacy of Peter, as Pope.

source?

1. We have no valid record of bishops of Rome until the end of the first century, until someone called Victor I.

Key word here is “valid” - which is to say that we have a record…but this gentlemen simply denies it…

1. Until the end of the second century, Rome’s Church was governed by a “presbyterium” and only later succeded by the Pope, while other regions of the Christian faith already had a bishop taking the lead.

Again - what is his source?

1. All New Testament references to Peter (including his letters) were written well after Saint Peter’s death.

Same as the answer to question #1…

I’m fairly convinced he is wrong, as his bio seems really protestant-leaning to me. The problem I face is that dad seems quite taken by this man’s talks and is of the opinion I should have doubts about Catholicism.

As I said - thank your dad for his concern and for the link. Then look at everything that the good folks here provide and take that back to your dad. Hopefully he will take the answers as seriously as he takes this fellows accusations.

Peace
James

 

[aidanbradypop]

Well said James!

 

[bitznbitez]

The crux of much of this line of argument is “The Scriptures are Fraudulent”. Thus I would challenge if the man is even a Christian much less a Catholic. And there is a pattern. Everything modern scholars don’t like they decide “must be added later”.

I note that he zeros in on Matt 16:18. Observe that the lists of disciples vary in order in the gospels except Judas is always listed last. Why ? Because he was the betrayer. Peter is always listed first. Why ? Because the authors of the gospels viewed him as the first of the apostles.

But lets pick on the "no authentic records until end of first century. Given that Christ died in AD30’s and 1st century ended in AD100 thats 70 years. There were only 4 or 5 during that period after Peter. During a period of serious persecution and routine martyrdom. Assuming the claim is valid, “Ok so a few documents got lost/burned. The people didn’t exactly forget”.

Just because someone is Catholic, or claims to be, doesn’t mean they are right. Martin Luther was Catholic, a monk even. Do not follow them.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Well said James!

 

[pablope]

Dear communitiy,

after I told my mother and father that I was going to convert to Catholicism, dad sent me a link to a german radio series on the Papacy. it was hosted by a professor of “controversial theology” from Germany, who describes himself as Roman Catholic. I checked his bio and he seems to be a rather peculiar chap.

 

[CutlerB]

Thanks for all your responses! I just listened to the thing again and came across one more thing this guy says: The Papacy developed from the first councils in Northern Africa onwards. They decided they would involve a “referee” and that was the bishop of Rome. He also states that te early Church intellectual leadership was in the Eastern Church, that’s why all the big councils like Nicaea, Ephesus, Chalcedon and so forth were there. The professor made the point that the Western Church attendees were only of second class and not in a position to decide, neither was there any pope, he says.

Maybe you can expand on that as well. Thanks so much!

 

[bitznbitez]

Thanks for all your responses! I just listened to the thing again and came across one more thing this guy says: The Papacy developed from the first councils in Northern Africa onwards. They decided they would involve a “referee” and that was the bishop of Rome. He also states that te early Church intellectual leadership was in the Eastern Church, that’s why all the big councils like Nicaea, Ephesus, Chalcedon and so forth were there. The professor made the point that the Western Church attendees were only of second class and not in a position to decide, neither was there any pope, he says.

Maybe you can expand on that as well. Thanks so much!

There is not a council decision “Hey we need a referree”. That is a projection you will not find in the text by those who want it not to be true. What there actually is, at the earliest councils such as the one named by your source, is an accepted and established practice of seeking approvel, resolution, oversight from the chair of Peter in Rome.

Even the church at Corinth wrote to Pope Clement (AD80s) on issues that remained unresolved from the time of Paul, Clement was a man mentioned in the New Testament in Pauls epistles, who replied to their inquiry in I Clement which is still extant.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Like all Doctrine, Doctrine about the Pope develops over time. The Papacy has always existed, but our understanding of it has grown over time.

Anyone who claims that we had a fully developed, modern understanding of the Papacy from Day One has no grasp of history. Heck, we didn’t even understand Baptism for centuries. It took more than a millennia after that for us to approach an understanding of Eucharist. And no theologian claims that we have plumbed the depths of either Doctrine.

Nobody would claim that Baptism and Eucharist were not part of the Early Church, but nobody would claim that those early Christians really understood what was going on (heck, I don’t believe we really understand these things today).

Did Peter and the Apostles truly grasp the meaning of Matt 16:18? Of course not. They were having trouble grasping Doctrine far simpler than this.

It took decades for the Church to even begin to understand the Primacy of Peter. All that time, the early Popes were exercising the authority of that Office (and early Christians were submitting to it), but they did not understand the authority they wielded. Nor did they need to. The Holy Spirit filled in what was lacking in their understanding (the same is true today).

 

[simspt]

Dear communitiy,

after I told my mother and father that I was going to convert to Catholicism, dad sent me a link to a german radio series on the Papacy. it was hosted by a professor of “controversial theology” from Germany, who describes himself as Roman Catholic. I checked his bio and he seems to be a rather peculiar chap.

He makes claims, that to my ears sound outrageous. I would like to list them here and ask for your refutations of each claim. After reading his bio before listening to the show, I knew pretty well what I was in for, and so it came. Here are the claims he makes:

1. Matthew 16:18 is probably not an authentic saying of Jesus.
2. The Cathechism is contradictory: In one place (which he doesn’t name) it says that Jesus founded the Church on Peter’s faith, and in another one says that it was founded on peter himself.
3. Peter and James were equals in Jerusalem (see acts of the Apostles)
4. It took more than 200 years for Matthew 16:18 to be interpreted as the Primacy of Peter, as Pope.
5. We have no valid record of bishops of Rome until the end of the first century, until someone called Victor I.
6. Until the end of the second century, Rome’s Church was governed by a “presbyterium” and only later succeded by the Pope, while other regions of the Christian faith already had a bishop taking the lead.
7. All New Testament references to Peter (including his letters) were written well after Saint Peter’s death.

I’m fairly convinced he is wrong, as his bio seems really protestant-leaning to me. The problem I face is that dad seems quite taken by this man’s talks and is of the opinion I should have doubts about Catholicism.

Please help me out. Thank you and God bless.

Even if there wasn’t a monarchial episcopate but a college of presbyters (surely those who stood out were remembered in the bishop lists ) in Rome after Peter up until the mid second century can we not assume the papacy developing in its embryonic stages during this time. Should its legitimacy be rejected because Jesus didn’t leave a full blown blue print. If so what about the development of other doctrines that took centuries to be fully articulated. I don’t personally think this “missing link” as some might see it does anywhere near as much harm to the doctrine of apostolic succession and the papacy as it might appear at first and only if one has an anachronistic view of the papacy. Regarding the scholars dividing Jesus up into the Jesus of history vs the Christ of faith… well they are stuck with the fact that the Evangelists who wrote the Gospels viewed the two as the same. Good luck on trying to impose back on the Gospels their view of a historical Jesus that doesnt jive with the Christ of faith the early church believed. The Gospels were written after Peters death, that in and of itself shows how the church during the last third of the 1st century viewed the unique role he played. This to my mind supports rather that diminishes the Catholic position.

In Christ

 

[JRKH]

Speaking to the “development” issue…

Too many put too much emphasis on things “Papal”…Which I suppose in natural in the Western Church were for many centuries the Pope was both a Spiritual and Temporal leader - however - such emphasis is in large part a red herring.

If one looks at how the Church developed, East and West, one sees a remarkable similarity in Structure, in methods and in doctrine. It is only at this very pinnacle that there is serious structural disagreement between the RC and the EO.

The Church - both East and West - before and since the great schism - has always functioned on a councilior basis. It has employed Bishops and Patriarchs as well as other clergy. The hallmark of the system is communication and prayerful, spirit guided consensus - not absolute dictatorship by one office.

The most interesting thing about such “papal debates” is that they totally miss this “councilior” point.
The Protestant attacks the Papal office…but he misses the highly biblical calls to unity…the instructions and example of the Church receiving and acting out Christ’s instructions to deal with problematic issues.
Where the Church battles through problems seeking consensus and humbly submitting our personal views to the authority of the Spirit in the Church - protestants split and each goes their own separate way. Now I ask…Which is more biblical?

Peace
James