Help with an argument about the first Pope?

[papaececi]

I need help refuting the claim that the first pope was actually appointed by Constantine. I was talking with a protestant who said this was the case. He cited the Ven. Bede as his source. I said we consider all of the prior Bishops of Rome as Pontiffs, even if the term wasn’t used at the time.

He also asked how we would explain that Peter was married. I thought that we thought Peter was celibate though he was married when he chose to follow Christ, but I wasn’t sure.

 

[pablope]

I need help refuting the claim that the first pope was actually appointed by Constantine. I was talking with a protestant who said this was the case. He cited the Ven. Bede as his source. I said we consider all of the prior Bishops of Rome as Pontiffs, even if the term wasn’t used at the time.

He also asked how we would explain that Peter was married. I thought that we thought Peter was celibate though he was married when he chose to follow Christ, but I wasn’t sure.

First…have him provide the acutal citation from Ven. Bede. Have him show you the actual document.

Then ask…who is Ven. Bede? Is he a historian of note?

Then ask your friend…to cite a reputable historian, a research paper, from academics, backed by evidence and history and acheology…that back up his claim that Constanstine appointed the first pope…not anti catholic sites where he most likely got the information. Ask him to tell his source of info to produce the actual documents…they should have source documents with which to base their story.

Have him produce the actual document where Constantine appoints the first pope. Tell him you want to see it. Ask him too, when did Constantin become a Christian?

 

[ConstantineTG]

First…have him provide the acutal citation from Ven. Bede. Have him show you the actual document.

Then ask…who is Ven. Bede? Is he a historian of note?

Then ask your friend…to cite a reputable historian, a research paper, from academics, backed by evidence and history and acheology…that back up his claim that Constanstine appointed the first pope…not anti catholic sites where he most likely got the information. Ask him to tell his source of info to produce the actual documents…they should have source documents with which to base their story.

Have him produce the actual document where Constantine appoints the first pope. Tell him you want to see it. Ask him too, when did Constantin become a Christian?

Not that I agree with the Protestant position or anything, I just find it sadly amusing that our usual response is “point me to this document that says this or that” as if our faith is some kind of courthouse.

 

[pablope]

Not that I agree with the Protestant position or anything, I just find it sadly amusing that our usual response is “point me to this document that says this or that” as if our faith is some kind of courthouse.

Because that is the best way, as far as my experience, to refute those claims from Protestants…which are likely spurious documents. So refute their sources…and you refute their claims.

 

[papaececi]

I know who the Venerable Bede is, though I don’t know exactly to which document the guy was refering. He was a historian of note, and a monk.

Does anyone know about this documentation?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Because that is the best way, as far as my experience, to refute those claims from Protestants…which are likely spurious documents. So refute their sources…and you refute their claims.

Not everything about the faith is in a document. Especially something that happened so early in the Church.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Not that I agree with the Protestant position or anything, I just find it sadly amusing that our usual response is “point me to this document that says this or that” as if our faith is some kind of courthouse.

I think that that is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Much anti-Catholic nonsense is just urban legend without any foundation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think that that is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Much anti-Catholic nonsense is just urban legend without any foundation.

Sure, but is our faith encapsulated in documentation?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I need help refuting the claim that the first pope was actually appointed by Constantine. I was talking with a protestant who said this was the case. He cited the Ven. Bede as his source. I said we consider all of the prior Bishops of Rome as Pontiffs, even if the term wasn’t used at the time.

There is no question that Bishops of Rome before Constantine were considered the senior Christian bishop, i.e. Pope. The idea that Constantine or some other Roman Emperor somehow created the Catholic Church, as distinct from the original Christian church, is nonsense. There is no evidence at all of such a schism.

He also asked how we would explain that Peter was married. I thought that we thought Peter was celibate though he was married when he chose to follow Christ, but I wasn’t sure.

Why do we need to explain Peter’s marriage? Most Jewish men married at a young age. He may or may not have remained celibate after following Christ. It has nothing to do with his being Bishop of Rome. There was no mandatory celibacy rule for clergy in the early Church.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Sure, but is our faith encapsulated in documentation?

What is the Bible if not documentation?

 

[ConstantineTG]

There is no question that Bishops of Rome before Constantine were considered the senior Christian bishop, i.e. Pope. The idea that Constantine or some other Roman Emperor somehow created the Catholic Church, as distinct from the original Christian church, is nonsense. There is no evidence at all of such a schism.

Although the claim was not far off. Constantine called the First Ecumenical Council and it was only then that Rome was given control of other territories outside her own (but even then, it is not for control of the entire Church). In a certain sense, this is the beginning of the Papacy as we know it. Though Constantine did not create the canons of the Council, it is the Fathers of the Council that did that. Constantine merely got all bishop in the world (ie. Roman Empire) to form such council.

Why do we need to explain Peter’s marriage? Most Jewish men married at a young age. He may or may not have remained celibate after following Christ. It has nothing to do with his being Bishop of Rome. There was no mandatory celibacy rule for clergy in the early Church.

In fact, a number of Bishops of Rome were married, including one son who replaced his father as Pope.

 

[ConstantineTG]

What is the Bible if not documentation?

Okay then, where in the Bible does it prove or disprove that Constantine established the Papacy?

 

[Mystophilus]

I need help refuting the claim that the first pope was actually appointed by Constantine. I was talking with a protestant who said this was the case. He cited the Ven. Bede as his source. I said we consider all of the prior Bishops of Rome as Pontiffs, even if the term wasn’t used at the time.

Your correspondent is confused: Bede quotes a letter from Dr Pope St Gregory the Great, which refers to Constantine having made Rome Christian (, 1.32Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation), not to Constantine having introduced the episcopacy to Rome.

He also asked how we would explain that Peter was married. I thought that we thought Peter was celibate though he was married when he chose to follow Christ, but I wasn’t sure.

A lot of practices, including the formalisation and mandating of priestly celibacy, developed over time. That is clear from 1 Tim 3:2, “A bishop must be …] the husband of only one wife”.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Constantine was emperor from 306 to 337.

Tertullian lived from c. 160 – c. 225.

Tertullian says that St. Peter consecrated Clement I, and mentioned the Papacy in other contexts as well.

Even if your friend does not accept what Tertullian wrote as true, it is clear that the Papacy was around for the Tertullian to write about - and this was before Constantine.

Okay then, where in the Bible does it prove or disprove that Constantine established the Papacy?

I don’t think this is an argument we need to have. Documentation is important, and whether or not every aspect of the faith is in such documentation (and lots certainly are), what is documented is extremely important. It is also true that some matters of spirituality are difficult to adequately describe in documentation.

But regardless, this is more of a history question than a spirituality question, and history is entirely based on documentation.

 

[OpenSource]

Okay then, where in the Bible does it prove or disprove that Constantine established the Papacy?

LOL oh that’s hilarious!! Where in the Bible is this or that? The bible has been hijacked, along with the teachings of Jesus.

You are being controlled. Your true nature is unity, not duality! Consider genesis…god had to ask where adam was? He didnt’ know beforehand?

Religion = control.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

LOL oh that’s hilarious!! Where in the Bible is this or that? The bible has been hijacked, along with the teachings of Jesus.

Since when was Marcion resuscitated?

You are being controlled.

To emancipate yourself from one thing necessarily means that you bind yourself to another. I would rather bind myself and be “controlled” by truth and love and therefore attain true freedom than bind myself to falsehood and be “happily” trapped by lies. Especially the comical lies of gnosticism.

Your true nature is unity, not duality!

This is just utter nonsense. The objection is too vague to even respond to.

Consider genesis…god had to ask where adam was? He didnt’ know beforehand?

Religion = control.

Yeah, like a parent who goes looking for a child hiding because he’s afraid of the anticipated punsihment, and the parent, knowing that the child is hiding under the bed, still asks, “where are you?” This just shows your ignorance of the context.

And just to correct your flawed “math”: Religion=truth=love= true freedom.

 

[pablope]

Your correspondent is confused: Bede quotes a letter from Dr Pope St Gregory the Great, which refers to Constantine having made Rome Christian (Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation, 1.32), not to Constantine having introduced the episcopacy to Rome.

".

Exactly my point…by asking for the actual citation and source document…the claim/story can so easily be refuted. I had one such claimant locate the source of his claim, and had him post it (in another forum), and read it…then I started asking questions on the claims made and the actual words from the true document…all I got were attacks and attempts to divert the story…

By the way…I looked at the source…and could not locate the letter from Pope Gregory that you mention above…is this it:

"For even so Constantine, our most pious emperor, recovering the Roman commonwealth from the perverse worship of idols, subjected the same with himself to our Almighty God and Lord Jesus Christ, and was himself, with the people under his subjection, entirely converted to Him.

 

[inkaneer]

Not everything about the faith is in a document. Especially something that happened so early in the Church.

Maybe not everything but a lot is. For instance on the subject of popes before Constantine we are speaking of the first 300 years of Catholicism. In that period of time we have documented people referring to the bishop of Rome and attributing to him the universal authority of the church. What the protestant individual is referring to however, is the actual use of the word “Pope” when addressing the Bishop of Rome. Here we find the earliest use of the word referring exclusively to the bishop of Rome around 398 AD. This is 60+ years after Constantine died [337AD]. So once again the protestant is incorrect. Prior to this [398AD] the term ‘pope’ was used in the West to refer to any bishop while in the East refered to both bishops and priests. It continues to be used in the Coptic Church for bishops. Still the old adage, “a rose by any other name…” applies. Call him the pope or the Bishop of Rome or the Rock or the chief shepherd of the church or any other title. It makes no difference he is still the one empowered with the authority to bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven.

 

[pablope]

LOL oh that’s hilarious!! You are being controlled. Your true nature is unity, not duality!

Consider genesis…god had to ask where adam was? He didnt’ know beforehand?
Religion = control.

REally…well, let us look…Gen 3…

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

In V11…God being all knowing, certainly knew what had happened, that Adam and the woman had sinned…but yet, He asks why they hide and what have they done…did God now really not know what they had done? Or was God asking them for something else?

God was asking them one thing…to confess and own up to their transgression…own up to and admit their sin of disobedience…that is why He asked them if they had eaten from the tree.

Adam’s response is disastrous…in v12…12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”…Adam blames God instead of admitting his transgression…and the Woman…v13…13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”…blames the serpent.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Maybe not everything but a lot is. For instance on the subject of popes before Constantine we are speaking of the first 300 years of Catholicism. In that period of time we have documented people referring to the bishop of Rome and attributing to him the universal authority of the church.

Whoa there! Where is that document?

What the protestant individual is referring to however, is the actual use of the word “Pope” when addressing the Bishop of Rome. Here we find the earliest use of the word referring exclusively to the bishop of Rome around 398 AD. This is 60+ years after Constantine died [337AD]. So once again the protestant is incorrect. Prior to this [398AD] the term ‘pope’ was used in the West to refer to any bishop while in the East refered to both bishops and priests. It continues to be used in the Coptic Church for bishops. Still the old adage, “a rose by any other name…” applies. Call him the pope or the Bishop of Rome or the Rock or the chief shepherd of the church or any other title. It makes no difference he is still the one empowered with the authority to bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven.

The term Pope was actually used first by the Patriarch of Alexandria.