Is this the best Protestant argument against the Papacy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_One_Duck
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The_One_Duck

Guest
Hello Fellow Catholics,

I was recently watching an Anti-Catholic speech (NOT because I would ever leave the Church, ONLY to strengthen my knowledge of the Church, and so I can find the best Protestant arguments and then debunk them) when I heard an argument against the Papacy that is probably the best I have heard.
It goes basically like this: Our EARLIEST writings that “prove” the Papacy are actually from about 150-200 AD, written by the Church Fathers. Why not earlier? He claims that this cannot be enough evidence.
The term “Church father” is actually quite false, because the earliest “Church Fathers” are actually no earlier than about 150 AD, give or take. This means that the Church has ALREADY been around for a hundred years. Meaning that when something is older than you, then you CANNOT be its Father. So how can someone, younger than the Church, claim to be the Church’s father?
He continues to say that the late writings by the Church fathers is simply not enough evidence to prove the Papacy.

Anyways guys, sorry for any sloppy mistakes or poor sentence structures, it is over 11pm right now and its been a long day. I would appreciate any evidence that will help to debunk this argument. Once we start talking about this I can help clear any confusion you might have. thanks for reading, and God bless.

The Duck
 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm

“ The word Father is used in the New Testamentto mean a teacher of spiritual things, by whose means the soul of man is born again into the likeness of Christ: “For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 4:15, 16; cf. Galatians 4:19). The first teachers of Christianity seem to be collectively spoken of as “the Fathers” (2 Peter 3:4).”
 
Being against the papacy can mean different things. Do you mean being against the concept of 1 man leading the church? Or the lineage going to Jesus?
 
I’m kinda confused by the person’s reasoning. The Church Fathers aren’t called such because of anything having to do with the Papacy. So, that’s all moot.

The Papacy was instituted by Christ, and this is found in Scripture, and witnessed to by all those other writings (of the Church Fathers, for example).
Catholics put their trust in CHRIST, and we believe 100% what Christ taught us, including the fact that the Pope is Christ’s vicar. We believe that Christ really did give Peter the keys of the kingdom ( Mt 16:19 ), making Peter His steward/vicar on earth ( cf. Is 22:20-22 ). We believe Christ really did command Peter to be the shepherd of Christ’s flock ( Jn 21:15-17 ) and to be the strength of his brother Apostles ( Lk 22:32 ) and that Christ really did build Christ’s Church on Simon (now “Rock” or “Peter”) ( Mt 16:18 ), whose confession led to the changing of his name…something uncommon and special and very significant in Scripture ( cff. Gen 17:3-6, 15-16, 32:28, 35:10 ). We take Christ 100% at His Word and we trust that He will not mislead us. We believe that the Church Christ established is One ( Mt 16:18, Jn 10:16, 1Cor 1:10, Jn 17:17-23, etc . ) , and does not err because it is guided by the Holy Spirit ( Jn 14:26, 16:13 ) and speaks with the voice of Christ and the Holy Spirit ( Lk 10:16, Acts 15:28 ) and that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth ( 1Tim 3:15 ), just like the Word of God says. And since Christ’s Church speaks with the Voice of Christ, we do not believe our faith is merely a “ subjective teaching of men ”, but the teachings of Christ. We believe Christ’s Church was given the authority, by Christ, to bind and loose “ whatever ” ( Mt 28:18-20, Jn 20:23, cff. 1Cor 11:23-24, Lk 10:16, Mt 18:7-18, Mt 16:19 ) and we do not reject that authority, because it comes from Christ Himself, Who is our God.
 
They are making things up. A+ for creativity, but F for objectivity, completeness and intellectual honesty. And sent to the corner wearing a dunce cap for indulging their ego while condemning indulgences.
 
That is in no way the best protestant objection to the papacy. Some armchair protestant apologists have very wacky views on The Early Church and do mental gymnastics beyond reason to try to say that the early church was really protestant.

Actually, I have read a writing by St Clement of rome (so this writing is from the first century) stating that The apostles appointed men to take their place after they died. There is evidence for apostolic succession and the papacy in the first century.

The last debate I got into with a armchair protestant apologist, he claimed the early church fathers believed in sola scriptura, yet there was a great apostacy, yet The early Church Fathers believed in a symbolic eucharist, not the real presence. This guy must have believed Christian’s where the dumbest people in the world if he truly believed they were so inconsistent in their beliefs until Martin Luther came on the scene.
 
The_One_Duck said:
Our EARLIEST writings that “prove” the Papacy are actually from about 150-200 AD, written by the Church Fathers. Why not earlier? He claims that this cannot be enough evidence.
The term “Church father” is actually quite false, because the earliest “Church Fathers” are actually no earlier than about 150 AD, give or take. This means that the Church has ALREADY been around for a hundred years. Meaning that when something is older than you, then you CANNOT be its Father. So how can someone, younger than the Church, claim to be the Church’s father?
He continues to say that the late writings by the Church fathers is simply not enough evidence to prove the Papacy.
Click to expand...
This is only one man’s opinion, yet it is telling. It tells me that he is very uncomfortable with the witness the earliest (in his opinion) Church Fathers have against the Protestant (and even Orthodox) view. There ARE Apostolic Fathers (as was pointed out already) whose witness also supports the Catholic view of the Papacy. It also tells me that he realizes the importance of this witness, and must therefore somehow be nullified. It also tells me that he is unable to get past his own prejudice and objectively weigh the evidence of Truth.

Protestants will always find something to find fault with in Catholic thinking, no matter how far fetched their justification is for their own position. It is basically prejudice that one battles, and without a proper disposition and openness to the Truth, it will be a hopeless to reason with them.

One thing ALL Protestant converts to Catholicism have in common is a sincere desire to learn the Truth, regardless of their own prejudice. That is pretty rare thing.
 
We point to Scripture first, which comes before the Fathers. The Fathers are additional evidence of the traditional understanding of those scriptures being carried forward.

Let’s flip this argument on the Protestants. If they propose their church was around before the Church Fathers, then it appears to have died out almost immediately, being gone when the Fathers were writing (Fathers who themselves knew an Apostle or knew those who did) and disappeared for centuries, in contradiction of Jesus’ promises in the Scriptures.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention before Scripture there was the Church. It was 15 years minimum after the ascension of Christ before the first letter of St. Paul was written. The Gospels are written even later. Somehow the first Christians are saved without the Gospel written down. But let’s go all the way. It’s not until late 2nd century that the Church has a list of New Testament books proposed. But wait there is more. Prior to the printing press there was very limited access to Scripture. So basically Christians went to Church to hear Scripture with no direct access to study it for themselves. This is how we know Sola Scriptura is not what Christians practiced because it was physically impossible for them to do so. So how were Christians saved during 600ad - 1000ad when there is no direct access to Scripture and the universal voice for Christianity is Catholic. Please don’t cite heretics who lost Christ in this period as alternate Christian groups. The east and the west agreed on the primacy of Peter and acknowledged the Pope while the east later reject the supremacy of Peter. All of this to say the Church fathers write about the headship of St. Peter well before the canon of the New Testament is agreed upon and far before the printing press. “Show me where that is in the Bible” is an invention of the reformation. History and logic are absolutely clear on that. I say all that to say the dates offered for when the Church father’s wrote are irrelevant to whether or not they acknowledged the Pope. They could have written much later about it and it would still be logically and historically necessary to say that Christianity believes in a Pope lol.
 
While I can agree that Peter was placed in charge of the first church, is there evidence that after he died, he placed another in a primacy position?

I know that several bishops were named but were any declared to a primary position that later came to be called pope? Thanks.

Second question…isn’t there documents that don’t agree on who the second pope was? Thanks again.
 
There are a number of different arguments against the various claims made about the Papal office. You would really need to dig into each of them to evaluate them. The best method for evaluation would be to identify the various Roman Catholic claims about the office of the Papacy, and then identify the differing responses to those claims. I think you would find that some arguments against the various claims are pretty shallow while others have quite a bit of merit to them. Also, you need to keep in mind that many would not necessarily argue against a specific type of polity (to include an episcopal form such as that used by the RCC) but against specific claims made about the office of the papacy (e.g.,papal infallibility, etc.).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top