Creating the Pope

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyprc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

johnnyprc

Guest
In my research of early church documents, including the Christian Greek Scriptures, I find it very interesting references to a Pope, or Bishop of Rome, is conspicuously left out of the writings. Catholics take great pride in being able to name-idly show the succession of Popes back to Peter.

If that is the case, why then are such important writings without acknowledgment of the post and person?

I have heard the argument that it may have been to protect the identity of the Pope, but I would effectively rebut that there is not even mention of past Popes in those writings - nothing to even really highlight their martyrdom.

To define my time period, I will point to 33 CE to 200 CE (including Justin Martyr). Also, there are obviously references to the person who the Church now claims was the Pope (Bishop of Rome), but nothing I can find specifically tying the office with the person.

Even if someone can show me a specific reference otherwise, the fact that one in thousands of pages of documents only exists makes the point I am suggesting - that the office of Pope came way later than the apostles death - by the standard of Church tradition AND the bible.
 
Back search by Google searching the names of the bishops who presided over the the chair of Peter.

If you need a quick list, try Wikipedia.

As I understand it, the first 30 some popes were martyred.

Scott Hahn and Mike Acquila have a book titled Living the Mysteries that you might enjoy. Mike has many others as well about the early Church. Pope Benedict has one as well.

This webpage would be helpful as well: fathersofthechurch(dot)com
 
johnnyprc said:
In my research of early church documents, including the Christian Greek Scriptures, I find it very interesting references to a Pope, or Bishop of Rome, is conspicuously left out of the writings. Catholics take great pride in being able to name-idly show the succession of Popes back to Peter.

If that is the case, why then are such important writings without acknowledgment of the post and person?

I have heard the argument that it may have been to protect the identity of the Pope, but I would effectively rebut that there is not even mention of past Popes in those writings - nothing to even really highlight their martyrdom.

To define my time period, I will point to 33 CE to 200 CE (including Justin Martyr). Also, there are obviously references to the person who the Church now claims was the Pope (Bishop of Rome), but nothing I can find specifically tying the office with the person.

Even if someone can show me a specific reference otherwise, the fact that one in thousands of pages of documents only exists makes the point I am suggesting - that the office of Pope came way later than the apostles death - by the standard of Church tradition AND the bible.
Click to expand...
To suggest absence of evidence is evidence of absence is a logical fallacy. You need evidence to demonstrate your point. Got any?
 
**Johnny,

Welcome & God Bless you in your search for the Truth of Jesus Christ, our Lord & Savior!

you wrote; “If that is the case, why then are such important writings without acknowledgment of the post and person?”

If you do not believe the Catholic Church’s teachings on the Papacy & Apostolic Tradition, then you must deny the validity of the Bible, because it is precisely the Popes & the Bishops who are the successors to Peter & the Apostles that defined the canon of Sacred Scripture!

If you are an honest student of history, you will see that there are numerous & consistent writings to confirm the position & legacy of the Popes!

Here are a few examples;
  1. “Please note that the Early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church. Around AD 80, the Church of Corinth deposed it’s lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome.
  2. St Irenaus, who was taught by St. Polycarp (a disciple of St. John the Apostle), stresses that Christians must be united to the Church of Rome in order to maintain the Apostolic Tradition. He then lists all the bishops of Rome up to his time.
St. Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons from about AD 180-200. He is considered one of the greatest theologians of the immediate post Apostolic period. In his work Against Heresies, St. Irenaeus makes the following statement about the Church of Rome & the successors of St. Peter: “…the successions here of the bishops of the greatest & most ancient Church known to all, founded & organized at rome by two of the most glorious Apostles, Peter & Paul, that Church which has the tradition & the faith comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that it is in her that the faithful have maintained the Apostolic Tradition” (3,3,3; Jurgens #211)

St. Irenaeus then goes on to name all the Popes succeeding Peter up to his time—12 in all. (William A. Jurgens, * The Faith of the Early Fathers*(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970) (3,3,3 Jurgens # 211)
  1. For 250 years the Roman Emperors tried to destroy Christianity through persecution. In the first 200 years of Christianity, every Pope but one was martyred-the Romans certainly knew who the head of the Church was!”
A Roman emperor’s greatest fear was a rival to the throne. Never the less, the Emperor Decius, one of the harshest persecutors of the early Christian Church, made the following remark: “ I would far rather receive news of a rival to the throne than that of another Bishop of Rome.” Decius said this after he executed Pope Fabian in AD 250. (Christian History, Issue 27, entitled “Persecution in the Early Church” (1990, Volume IX, no. 3, 22)
  1. St. Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110) appointed by St. Peter also recognizes Rome’s Primacy.
(Father Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham, in ‘*Beginning Apologetics 1 *(www.catholicapologetics.com)
**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
 
davidv said:
To suggest absence of evidence is evidence of absence is a logical fallacy. You need evidence to demonstrate your point. Got any?
Click to expand...
CAF should install a ‘like’ button (not unlike Facebook) so that i can like posts like this
 
Some quotes from St. Irenaeus of Lyons, in Against Heresies. He was born between 115-142 AD, so this stems from the very beginning of Christianity.

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” (3:3:2)

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.” (3:3:3)

From newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm

Compare with this:
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

List of first 15 Popes from the Catholic Encyclopedia linked above. Note that St. Irenaeus seems to be counting in degrees of distance from Peter and the apostles, hence Sixtus, the seventh Pope, is sixth from Peter.
  1. St. Peter (32-67)
  2. St. Linus (67-76)
  3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
  4. St. Clement I (88-97)
  5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
  6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
  7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
  8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
  9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
  10. St. Pius I (140-155)
  11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
  12. St. Soter (166-175)
  13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
  14. St. Victor I (189-199)
  15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
 
I appreciate the responses, but all the references seem to come from only one church father - Irenaeus. Out of 20 or so early church writers only 1 seems to mention the bishop of Rome with consistency…?

I guess to me that signals a concern, since the Pope would have been a primary figure to solicit advice from or pay a certain amount of homage towards. If 19 of 20 writers didn’t, what does that say?

Also, it is worth noting that Irenaeus himself states that the Bishop of Rome was under the influence of heresies.

“But he had the mortification of finding the Montanist heresy patronized by Eleutherus the Bishop of Rome; and there he met an old friend from the school of Polycarp, who had embraced the Valentinian heresy.”
  • Introductory Note to Irenaeus Against the Heresies by Philip Schaff.
 
Thank you for the references.

However, I admit that there are plenty of references to the Pope’s position post Council of Nicea. Many non-Catholic sects seem to point to that general time as a point of apostasy entering the church.

The fact that so many bible writers and then early church fathers leave out, what today is considered such an important role to the Church (being the Pope), it MORE than odd in my mind. For the “chair of Peter” to be such an important office from day one, it appears it wasnt worth writing about for 200+ years.

Since it is all too easy to write revisionist history, I really would like to examine writers pre-Nicene Creed. Like many other Christians, including Paul, Timothy, and Justin Martyr, I feel there was a great apostasy which “took over” the church.

JP
 
What is this all about anyway? It sounds like it should be in apologetics, but not in Philosophy.
Where is any of your evidence of apostacy? Or a reason that an apostacy would make any of these speculations worth anyone’s time?
 
I am not trying to get in to the apostasy issue, but keeping it simple with regards the Pope - or I should say the lack of evidence between Jesus death (33 CE) and say 200 CE the “chair of Peter” was real.

The lack of evidence should be shocking given the most important Christian writers wrote their works in this timeframe. Contrary to some who think a lack of evidence proves nothing, the issue is not one to be dismissed lightly. Paul, who was in Rome, never once discussed meeting with Peter there. Timothy never mentions a successor to Peter, or Peter himself being of any special position. Clement of Rome never acknowledged the position, yet Catholics claim him the 2nd or 3rd Pope (depending on source). There seems no doubt he had authority, but there did not seem to be one particular person who acted as Catholics would define the Pope. Linus and Cletus were both contemporaries of Clement, all three Bishops, all three in Rome the same time, and all had different roles in administration.

If it is shown that the position of the Pope was not firmly established until later centuries, I think there is credence to the thought it was a man made office. Authority to the position was more about altering history than true succession.
 
johnnyprc said:
I am not trying to get in to the apostasy issue, but keeping it simple with regards the Pope - or I should say the lack of evidence between Jesus death (33 CE) and say 200 CE the “chair of Peter” was real.

The lack of evidence should be shocking given the most important Christian writers wrote their works in this timeframe. Contrary to some who think a lack of evidence proves nothing, the issue is not one to be dismissed lightly. Paul, who was in Rome, never once discussed meeting with Peter there. Timothy never mentions a successor to Peter, or Peter himself being of any special position. Clement of Rome never acknowledged the position, yet Catholics claim him the 2nd or 3rd Pope (depending on source). There seems no doubt he had authority, but there did not seem to be one particular person who acted as Catholics would define the Pope. Linus and Cletus were both contemporaries of Clement, all three Bishops, all three in Rome the same time, and all had different roles in administration.

If it is shown that the position of the Pope was not firmly established until later centuries, I think there is credence to the thought it was a man made office. Authority to the position was more about altering history than true succession.
Click to expand...
Based on this logic, after Jesus died how much of the bible was there available? Could we then argue that the christian bible is a product of invention also?
 
johnnyprc said:
If it is shown that the position of the Pope was not firmly established until later centuries, I think there is credence to the thought it was a man made office.
Click to expand...
Not completely, because things weren’t as centralized back then. Even if the Roman See had primacy from the beginning, that doesn’t mean that all churches necessarily recognized that primacy. The Papacy does not depend on the recognition of that authority, only the mandate granted by Christ. There were many sects, heresies, and groups during that period, as evidenced by the title of Irenaeus’ work itself- but that doesn’t mean that the Papacy was invalid. On a logical level, you could argue that few churches recognized or acknowledged the primacy of Rome (hence, less mention of it), but it does not follow that the Christ-given mandate did not exist.

However, there is more than the witness of Irenaeus to the primacy of the Roman See. This link: newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm#II under heading II, gives a broad overview of the different sources of historical evidence for the primacy of Rome.
 
johnnyprc said:
Clement of Rome never acknowledged the position, yet Catholics claim him the 2nd or 3rd Pope (depending on source).
Click to expand...
In his first epistle, chapter 59, Clement wrote: “If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin…”

That seems to be a fairly strong indication that Clement thought that his church had some sort of special authority, so much so that disobedience would involve danger/sin.
There seems no doubt he had authority, but there did not seem to be one particular person who acted as Catholics would define the Pope. Linus and Cletus were both contemporaries of Clement, all three Bishops, all three in Rome the same time, and all had different roles in administration.
Click to expand...
Are you certain that all of these are the same people listed as the Popes? My understanding is that a lot of these names were fairly common, and that the lack of organized surnames makes positive identification tricky at best. Just because there was a contemporary of Clement who was named Linus doesn’t necessarily mean that there was no one named Linus before him who could have functioned as the Pope.
 
Well, lets get one thing clear - I am not suggesting the “Church” didn’t have authority. It is obvious that there was authority through the apostles and their successors. I am arguing that a HUGE gap exists needed to prove that the Pope had a foundation in the early Church.

For such an important issue to Catholics, this is either tellingly missing, or mistake of the Spirit. Since we know no such mistake can be made by the Spirit, I have to assume the alternative for now - THERE WAS NO INTENTION by the early Church fathers (including apostles) to guide the development of the Holy See - and/or office of the Pope. This seems to have developed a couple hundred years after Jesus was on earth.

It is interesting to note the unified chronology of Popes during this time. There is a lot of discussion as to the sequence of Pope’s 2-10.

I guess for someone like me looking for signs as to whether something was born by man’s thoughts or Holy Spirit, I have to place this subject matter in the “man’s invention” category. If Jesus meant in Mt. that Peter was supposed to have a clear papal position that would be passed on to a successor, and that office was supposed to be as important as it is today, inspired bible writers and known church father’s would have taken the time to at least write something on the matter. The lack of doing such is very telling.
 
One other thing…

I have been focusing on the lack of evidence of a Holy See in the early church, but I will also say there are specific evidences against such. A couple of them being:
  1. Selection of replacement apostle (Judas). This would have been a great time for God to show authority Peter may have had apart from the other apostles. Instead, the apostle’s cast lots to decide the replacement of Judas.
  2. FIrst Council Jerusalem. James presided. Yes, we all know what Peter said, but James called for the vote and seemed to take a senior position of authority a chairman.
  3. Paul and Peter disagree. Paul was right, and Paul counseled Peter over inappropriate position.
…it goes on, but there are some very good reasons to doubt any special Pope like position Peter may have held.
 
johnnyprc said:
I guess for someone like me looking for signs as to whether something was born by man’s thoughts or Holy Spirit, I have to place this subject matter in the “man’s invention” category. If Jesus meant in Mt. that Peter was supposed to have a clear papal position that would be passed on to a successor, and that office was supposed to be as important as it is today, inspired bible writers and known church father’s would have taken the time to at least write something on the matter. The lack of doing such is very telling.
Click to expand...
Well, Irenaeus wrote something very clear on the matter. You still can’t dismiss Irenaeus as being invalid, for he was certainly an important father of the Church. As my link explained, the following fathers/historical figures wrote something on the matter:
  1. St. Cyprian
  2. Firmilian of Caesarea
  3. Tertullian
  4. Hyppolytus
  5. St. Dionysius of Alexandria
  6. Emperor Aurelian
I note that you still haven’t systematically addressed the actual writings of these individuals. You seem to be relying on generalizations. What is it about the actual writings of these individuals that you find invalid or insignificant?
 
Your main concern seems to be the lack of papal paperwork by the Early Church.

In that 30 some of the first popes were martyred - it reminds me of a poster which reads:

“When you’re up to your … in crocodiles, it becomes difficult to remember that your main objective was to drain the swamp.”
 
johnnyprc said:
  1. Selection of replacement apostle (Judas). This would have been a great time for God to show authority Peter may have had apart from the other apostles. Instead, the apostle’s cast lots to decide the replacement of Judas.
Click to expand...
The Pope’s authority has never meant that group actions were never undertaken. Church councils have existed from the beginning, and are still carried out today.
  1. FIrst Council Jerusalem. James presided. Yes, we all know what Peter said, but James called for the vote and seemed to take a senior position of authority a chairman.
Click to expand...
“Seemed to” is a key word. No one is saying that Peter was the only one who did anything in the early Church. Other Church members taking action does not mean that the See of Rome did not have a special authority.
  1. Paul and Peter disagree. Paul was right, and Paul counseled Peter over inappropriate position.
Click to expand...
The main reason for the existence of pontifical committees, such as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, is to advise the Pope on difficult matters. The Pope’s authority does not mean that he cannot seek counsel and be advised by others before he invokes that authority.
…it goes on, but there are some very good reasons to doubt any special Pope like position Peter may have held.
Click to expand...
We also have direct written evidence that Irenaeus considered the Roman Church preeminent over all other Churches as early as the middle of the 2nd century. Clement and all the other people I mentioned make reference to this authority in some degree.

I don’t understand why you think that the Papacy lacks evidence. You just keep making generalization even when we provide you with direct quoted evidence. Do you think Irenaeus is flat out wrong? What is your exact understanding of those quotes? If they are wrong, why do you think they are wrong? What about the other 6 people the link mentioned? Until you directly address the individual pieces of evidence, you really can’t make generalizations.

Furthermore, your objections against the Papacy consist of extrapolations from historical events, which are not as reliable as direct statements about historical events. The apostles all had a hand in replacing Judas, so you extrapolate that perhaps all the apostles were equal. On the other hand, we have direct statements by Irenaeus that all Churches must submit to Rome. Which do you think is stronger evidence?

We are dealing with a group of people living in a time with minimal communication. Most of the people where illiterate. Letters had to be carried by hand or by ship. I think it’s remarkable that we have any historical evidence from this period, and the fact that we have direct documentation about the succession of the See of Rome and Rome’s preeminent authority means far more than any extrapolation you can make.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top