How to Explain About the Pope to Protestants

[St_Violet]

it’s not easy disscussing with protestants, but my current situation is that Alot of protestants will not believe in the authority of the Pope unless the term “pope” is in the bible regardless if you try to explain to them the term pope comes from papa, and papa means Father and then giving them different examples like for instance 1 Corinthians 2: 15-16, but they usually insist to look for the term Pope. Then I tried pulling out the early Church Fathers proving Peter was our First Pope, like for instances

Irenaeus

The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3

but they seem to put the Bible above the Church Fathers, so it wouldn’t work.

But my question is, within our earliest records, which is the first Pope that consider himself the sucessor of Peter.
I believe acheology has proven that the term pope was used to refer to the Bishop of Rome in the graves of the victums of Christian persecution, ( I believe it was Fabian’s?) can someone educate me that aspect?

I’m trying to put together on which Pope first called himself Pope, the way I understand it, many people were called fathers, but I am just trying to put the peices together because I’m sure there had to be a pope that needed a name to distinguish himself from the others who called themselves father as well.

Some protestant believe that there was noone man authority , there were a group of people who sat together and made descisions, how would you handle this one, I tried to use scripture to where Peter takes charge and how Peter is always the first mentioned out of the group. but you know… I just think it’s hopeless sometimes.

 

[KofC660]

The pope doesn’t call himself “pope”.

The titles the pope uses for himself are, in order:

    * Bishop of Rome
    * Vicar of Christ
    * Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
    * Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
    * Primate of Italy
    * Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province
    * Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City
    * Servant of the Servants of God

Of those titles “Supreme Pontiff” is the oldest, going back to the head of the Roman pagan religion (700+ BC).

So, if they want something they can “grab on to” from the Bible, you have “Bishop”, “Rome”, “Christ”, “Apostles”, and “Servant”.

It is best to explain to them that if they deny the historicity of the Catholic Church, they are denying the historicity of the Resurrection.

If they deny the historicity of the Resurrection, they are denying Christianity itself.

 

[Sixtus]

KofC660 posted:

Re: How to Explain About the Pope to Protestants
The pope doesn’t call himself “pope”.

The titles the pope uses for himself are, in order:

• Bishop of Rome
• Vicar of Christ
• Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
• Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
• Primate of Italy
• Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province
• Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City
• Servant of the Servants of God

Of those titles “Supreme Pontiff” is the oldest, going back to the head of the Roman pagan religion (700+ BC).

So, if they want something they can “grab on to” from the Bible, you have “Bishop”, “Rome”, “Christ”, “Apostles”, and “Servant”

I agree.

Additionally, you may wish to point out that their own respective tradition has its authoritative head. They may be called ‘Moderators’ or ‘Arch-bishops’ or something else. Once when we were much smaller 2000 years ago, we too only had bishops but as we have grown, the need has developed for Arch-bishops and Cardinal-bishops, the head of which is the Supreme Bishop whose office comes from the Blessed Apostle himself.

I also point out that every large organisation has to have a structure and authority else it simply collapses into anarchy and chaos. Every successful business has its board of directors and President or Chairman. Why should religious organisations be any different

 

[Publisher]

The pope doesn’t call himself “pope”.

The titles the pope uses for himself are, in order:

    * Bishop of Rome
    * Vicar of Christ
    * Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
    * Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
    * Primate of Italy
    * Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province
    * Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City
    * Servant of the Servants of God

Of those titles “Supreme Pontiff” is the oldest, going back to the head of the Roman pagan religion (700+ BC).

So, if they want something they can “grab on to” from the Bible, you have “Bishop”, “Rome”, “Christ”, “Apostles”, and “Servant”.

It is best to explain to them that if they deny the historicity of the Catholic Church, they are denying the historicity of the Resurrection.

If they deny the historicity of the Resurrection, they are denying Christianity itself.

Claiming that if they deny the resurrection if they deny the RCC would go over like a fart in chruch…one has nothing to do with the other if one does not believe the RCC was founded by Christ in the first place. The truth of the resurrection exists independent of the debateable history of the RCC.

 

[christcnection1]

Claiming that if they deny the resurrection if they deny the RCC would go over like a fart in chruch…one has nothing to do with the other if one does not believe the RCC was founded by Christ in the first place. The truth of the resurrection exists independent of the debateable history of the RCC.

Agreed.

However, in some of the louder churches you could probably get away with ripping one.

(Not that one should!)

 

[Publisher]

Agreed.

However, in some of the louder churches you could probably get away with ripping one.

(Not that one should!)

LOL

 

[KofC660]

Claiming that if they deny the resurrection if they deny the RCC would go over like a fart in chruch…one has nothing to do with the other if one does not believe the RCC was founded by Christ in the first place. The truth of the resurrection exists independent of the debateable history of the RCC.

This has nothing to do with belief here, this has to do with history.

In order to accept the historicity of the Resurrection, one must accept the historicity of the Catholic Church.

If you claim the Catholic Church was invented in the 4th century, you are denying the historicity of the Resurrection, because it was the Catholic Church alone that brought us the Resurrection through the centuries, and no other church.

 

[Publisher]

This has nothing to do with belief here, this has to do with history.

In order to accept the historicity of the Resurrection, one must accept the historicity of the Catholic Church.

If you claim the Catholic Church was invented in the 4th century, you are denying the historicity of the Resurrection, because it was the Catholic Church alone that brought us the Resurrection through the centuries, and no other church.

And I thought the truth of the resurrection had to do with Jesus…this is a new concept for me…I didn’t realize the resurrection stands or falls within the claims of the RCC.

The history of the RCC is a matter of belief and faith. You believe in it’s mythology and that mythology shapes your beliefs…that’s ok…if it works for you…it just doesn’t work for everyone.

 

[Allweather]

And I thought the truth of the resurrection had to do with Jesus…this is a new concept for me…I didn’t realize the resurrection stands or falls within the claims of the RCC.

It seems you’re confusing religious truth with historical evidence. The point was made that they aren’t the same thing, although one communicates the other in some degree. The Resurrection is religious truth with elements of historical attestation, since it was witnessed by people who we know existed, and wrote about it.

The history of the RCC is a matter of belief and faith. You believe in it’s mythology and that mythology shapes your beliefs…that’s ok…if it works for you…it just doesn’t work for everyone.

Again, you’re confusing religious truth with historical “facts.” It does seem true that history can be pretty “wiggly” and open to wide interpretation. However, there is no question that the Church which witnessed the life of Jesus, his crucifixion and resurrection, formed itself into a visible, authoritative institution, wrote the Bible, assembled it, canonized it, and wrote huge amounts of extra-Biblical material which constitutes a body of theological and historical evidence that is in existence today.

It is incorrect to say that the “history of the RCC is a matter of belief and faith.” To believe in the resurrection is, to a large extent, a matter of belief and faith, even though there were human witnesses whose testimonies we take as inspired and authoritative.

 

[Publisher]

It seems you’re confusing religious truth with historical evidence. The point was made that they aren’t the same thing, although one communicates the other in some degree. The Resurrection is religious truth with elements of historical attestation, since it was witnessed by people who we know existed, and wrote about it.

Again, you’re confusing religious truth with historical “facts.” It does seem true that history can be pretty “wiggly” and open to wide interpretation. However, there is no question that the Church which witnessed the life of Jesus, his crucifixion and resurrection, formed itself into a visible, authoritative institution, wrote the Bible, assembled it, canonized it, and wrote huge amounts of extra-Biblical material which constitutes a body of theological and historical evidence that is in existence today.

It is incorrect to say that the “history of the RCC is a matter of belief and faith.” To believe in the resurrection is, to a large extent, a matter of belief and faith, even though there were human witnesses whose testimonies we take as inspired and authoritative.

This is a rubbing point for many of us…we disagree with the beginning premise. Based on the historical documents and scholars I share affinity with, I do not believe the writers of the New Testament were eyewitnesses. The gospels are anonomous…as is Acts…Paul’s accepted letters were written by Paul…but he was not an eyewitness either…the pseudo-Pauline letters may have Paul’s influence…but were written by proto-orthodox believers. John, 1,2,3 John, Revelation, were not written by John the apostle…again…no eyewitnesses.

The ECF were proto-orthodox, but not the ONLY leaders who taught the Christian message…and who eventually claimed “apostolic sucession”. Irenaeus did claim there was a “catholic” church…a proto-orthodox church, but the existing RCC is no more THE catholic church than today’s Church of Christ IS the Church of Christ simply because they claim the name.

We have a difficult time discussing faith and beliefs…and from time to time I make a statement I accept as true…like now…and yes…we could carry on a long drawn out discussion, but we use different sources of historical truth…I would tend to accept Elaine Pagels, Bart Erhman, Joan O’Grady, Hyam McJacoby and Burton Mack before I would accept Benedict’s take…but that’s just me…my faith isn’t in these people…it is through their historical understanding I have found sufficient enough evidence to frame my own understanding of the development of the early Christian church…and it really doesn’t “lock step” with the official RCC take on it’s history.

I have a different definition of what the “church” is…it’s not an organiziation but a People seeking to live the reign of God in our world…seeking to live under the Kingdom of God…I believe Jesus said one couldn’t say it is “lo there, or here…the Kingdom of God is within you.”

I do not see the compelling evidence that Jesus of Nazareth established new sacraments and ordinances…before I ever heard of the Society of Friends I came to that conclusion at 18 years of age…I don’t believe in a sacredotal ministry either…or baptism by water as being anything but a “sign”…and a “sign” that was never meant to continue…direct access to God without sacraments or ordinances or priesthood or heirarchy…it was these conclusions at a very young age that led me…quite surprisingly to becoming convinced a Friend…plain and simple.

We are starting at different places in discussing history…coming to different conclusions…I do not see your reasons as compelling enough for me…but to me…in my experience…my conclusions do make sense…to me…and many others…if they didn’t…I’d be Catholic…it’s not a matter of proving an unbroken line of apostolic sucession…I don’t believe one ever existed…it’s religious myth…truth can be found in myth…and if it works for you…great…the very nature of God and His revelation in Jesus of Nazareth comes into focus…we see God’s working in humanity very differently…not bad…but different…I can live with that…I trust not in history or popes or church councils…they have their purpose in understanding the developiing history and myth of the Christian Church as a whole, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox and Heretical movements…but it’s just historical myth…Peter is no more the first pope than…well…Joeseph Smith the first prophet in this dispensation…it’s a good mythic story…but not fact…religious truth perhaps…fact…no.

 

[Sixtus]

Publisher posted:

.Peter is no more the first pope than…well…Joeseph Smith the first prophet in this dispensation…it’s a good mythic story…but not fact.

My dear Publisher, then I would direct you back to your bible.

There are numerous texts which support Peter as the first Pope.

I would also remind you of the fact that it was ‘his’ disciples who also assumed this office as his successors: Linus, Cletus, Clement - the Scribe of 1Peter and the author of 2 Peter.

It is interesting to note that the successors of Peter assumed his authority of Supreme Pastor even though there were still Christ’s Apostles alive at the time, who obviously did not object to this office surpassing them. I wonder why they just accepted Peter’s Office and occupants without ever challenging them.

Why did Christ commission all of the Apostles to preach the Gospel but place Peter alone as ‘head’ of His flock! Jn21:17

 

[christcnection1]

Claiming that if they deny the resurrection if they deny the RCC would go over like a fart in chruch…one has nothing to do with the other if one does not believe the RCC was founded by Christ in the first place. The truth of the resurrection exists independent of the debateable history of the RCC.

Again… I agree with you. However, I would personally find it more difficult to accept the resurrection if I could not at least trust the CC in some measure. This would include acknowledging the Papacy on some level.

Still, your point is well taken. God, hypothetically, could have raised Jesus from the dead and done so in spite of the Catholic Church, and all “Her errors.”

I think it’s possibly, but unlikely… not to mention difficult to embrace.

As a former Evangelical your essential point is well taken.

God bless,
JB

 

[Publisher]

Publisher posted:

My dear Publisher, then I would direct you back to your bible.

There are numerous texts which support Peter as the first Pope.

I would also remind you of the fact that it was ‘his’ disciples who also assumed this office as his successors: Linus, Cletus, Clement - the Scribe of 1Peter and the author of 2 Peter.

It is interesting to note that the successors of Peter assumed his authority of Supreme Pastor even though there were still Christ’s Apostles alive at the time, who obviously did not object to this office surpassing them. I wonder why they just accepted Peter’s Office and occupants without ever challenging them.

Why did Christ commission all of the Apostles to preach the Gospel but place Peter alone as ‘head’ of His flock! Jn21:17

I have no arguement with your belief…it is based on faith…it is based on a tradition you hold to have authority. I do not see it holds much historical accuracy that is compelling for me…and for a large amount of Protestants…for those who do accept apostolic authority, High Anglicans, Orthodox and Coptic groups, Peter hold primacy as bishop of Rome…not supreme pontiff and head of the church…but then much of the historical myth is accepted even by these groups…I do not accept the historical myth of Peter.

I realize that puts us at a point where neither one of us will prove anything…it gets back down to 'faith"…you have “faith” in your church…I do not.

 

[Publisher]

Again… I agree with you. However, I would personally find it more difficult to accept the resurrection if I could not at least trust the CC in some measure. This would include acknowledging the Papacy on some level.

Still, your point is well taken. God, hypothetically, could have raised Jesus from the dead and done so in spite of the Catholic Church, and all “Her errors.”

I think it’s possibly, but unlikely… not to mention difficult to embrace.

As a former Evangelical your essential point is well taken.

God bless,
JB

I appreciate your post. Thank you. We can share in the power of his resurrection without sharing in the authority of the RCC…

 

[Sixtus]

Publisher posted:

it gets back down to 'faith"…you have “faith” in your church…I do not.

That is fine, but if you cannot trust the Apostolic Catholic Church, then why do you accept her authority to code, compile and commission the bible?

It is illogical to say ‘I reject all that the Catholic Church teaches but I accept her compilation of the Bible!’

By rejecting her, you must by definition reject the Bible and if you do that, where did you get your information about Christ!

 

[SyCarl]

Publisher posted:

That is fine, but if you cannot trust the Apostolic Catholic Church, then why do you accept her authority to code, compile and commission the bible?

By rejecting her, you must by definition reject the Bible and if you do that, where did you get your information about Christ!

How do we know the Church has authority? Don’t say from the Bible because you have just said we need the Church’'s authority to have the Bible. What it essentially comes down to is that we are supposed to believe the Church has authority because it says so.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher posted:

That is fine, but if you cannot trust the Apostolic Catholic Church, then why do you accept her authority to code, compile and commission the bible?

It is illogical to say 'I reject all that the Catholic Church teaches but I accept her compilation of the Bible.

By rejecting her, you must by definition reject the Bible and if you do that, where did you get your information about Christ!

While I do accept the writings of the New Testament as “scripture” and realize that they had universal circulation in the first centuries after Jesus died…they are records of others dealings with the Eternal…“testimonies”…only those books which were believed to have “authority”…and yes finally defined and by the established church…I do not find the writings of the New Testament to be “closed”. As a Friend I reject a “closed canon” of scripture…God’s word is contained in it’s pages…but also elsewhere…it is the work of the Holy Spirit, of which the accepted scriptures testify that we seek to follow. Not the church nor any “apostolic succession”…

George Fox when he was quoted the scriptures asked those who quoted him chapter and verse…“Thee tells me what the apostles say, thee tells me what the prophets say…but what can thee say? We live in that virtue of life that the apostles and prophets live in.”

We believe in the Real Presence…it is that Presence we seek to understand…and the scriptures do give insight…but they are not our sole guide…the Light Within leads us as well.

 

[Sixtus]

St Carl posted:

How do we know the Church has authority? Don’t say from the Bible because you have just said we need the Church’'s authority to have the Bible. What it essentially comes down to is that we are supposed to believe the Church has authority because it says so.

So you reject Apostolic Catholic Church, so you reject the Bible which she coded, so where do you get your information about Christ.

If you reject her authority you reject her authority to codify the Bible. If you reject her authority then you reject her authority per se including her authority to codify the bible. You must logically reject the Bible so where do you get your information about Christ?

You reject Christ whom she preaches but you worship Christ whom she preaches. That just does not make sense. Either you accept her teaching and Christ or you do not accept Christ whom she preaches

 

[SyCarl]

St Carl posted:

So you reject Apostolic Catholic Church, so you reject the Bible which she coded, so where do you get your information about Christ.

If you reject her authority you reject her authority to codify the Bible. If you reject her authority then you reject her authority per se including her authority to codify the bible. You must logically reject the Bible so where do you get your information about Christ?

You reject Christ whom she preaches but you worship Christ whom she preaches. That just does not make sense. Either you accept her teaching and Christ or you do not accept Christ whom she preaches

You have not answered my question. How do we know the Church has the authority it claims?

 

[Sixtus]

Sy Carl posted:

You have not answered my question. How do we know the Church has the authority it claims?

Mt 15:18-19