No pope before 400 AD?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KathieAnn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KathieAnn

Guest
Please tell me how I can respond to a Protestant who insists that the Catholic Church claims certain early fathers were popes who never were simply to make the case of apostolic succession. Here is a bit of our conversation starting with my comment:

And ordination of every priest can be
traced back to one of the apostles. FACT. By the way, you also said that some
that the Church considered popes were not. Who were these?
The term pope did not appear until Leo the Great in the mid 400’s. I know the apologist response to this (as I have heard all of the apologist responses you have given me to the other facts I have shown you). However, the historical fact is that there was no such thing as a pope before the mid 400’s.
I have a pope
chart which lists all the popes by name, birth, year of election and death.
Of course you do. The Roman Catholic church retroactively uses the term pope for certain early church fathers. That does not make it historically accurate. Study some history. Next to the Bible, history is probably the best argument against the Roman Catholic church.
End of our discussion and back to me here:
Now I know they didn’t have to called “pope” to be in apostolic succession but where are Protestants getting this idea that we invented our line of succession prior to mid 400’s? What “history” is he referring to? Are there historical documents prior to 400 or so that list our popes that are reliable? We have argued for a long time on many different topics, and he always claims to know history better than me and that the Catholic version of history is made up. Help!

Thanks!
 
Hi,

It seems to me that your friend is getting the title 'Pope" confused with the office of the pope. I would maybe explain to your friend that the pope is simply the bishop of Rome, and HISTORY shows that there has always been a bishop of Rome. Ask your friend to show a time when there was not a bishop of Rome. If I understand your goal correctly, your not trying to prove the title “Pope” began in the first century so don;t get sidetracked by your friends argument on the title, your goal is to prove that there has always been a successor to the chair of St. Peter, whether you call that person Pope, or simply Bishop of Rome.

Now, since you have already said you can provide a list of the popes, ACCORDING TO HISTORY, yet your friend say’s it is not an accurate list, then burden of proof is on him/her to prove his/her assertion that there has not always been a bishop of Rome, and I would tell him/her that.

Let us know how it goes!!

brandon
 
There are a number of tracts at the catholic answers library which provide direct evidence you might find useful in this debate. For example, here are a couple excerpts from
catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp

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]).

Tertullian
“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).
 
Many non-Catholics try to squeeze much doubt into the first three centuries of Christianity. What they don’t realize (or completely ignore) is the enormous problems it creates for their own position. For instance, no one could agree what constituted Scripture until the 300’s (or was it the 400’s?), making the thoroughly incoherent Sola Scriptura more so.

You friend is engaging in special pleading; forcing you to scientifically prove the claims of the Church, while all he as to do is pile on difficulties and never offer a more plausible alternative.

Scott
 
Also, look into St. Stephen, St. Cyprian of Carthage and all of the controversy about the re-baptism of heretics (around 257 AD). It is cited in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History in the early parts of Book 7 which was written in 312 AD.

Just point out who settled the controversy. I have even seen one Protestant site complain about the fact that Stephen settled the matter and that his position was against the position of many bishops and thus it was wrong. Of course that site was using it as an example for one thing but failing to consider what it DID point out. It also demonstrates the authority of the Church of Rome and particularly that of the Pope.

He is confusing “term” with office.

sirnick.mrdataesq.net/~weunice/dist_chart.php?chart=rome.txt

Follow the links. Most of this is collected from Catholic Answers and other Catholic apologetics sites.
 
To complete the consideration of the validity of baptism conferred by heretics, we must give some account of the celebrated controversy that raged around this point in the ancient Church. In Africa and Asia Minor the custom had been introduced in the early part of the third century of rebaptizing all converts from heresy. As far as can be now ascertained, the practice of rebaptism arose in Africa owing to decrees of a Synod of Carthage held probably between 218 and 222; while in Asia Minor it seems to have had its origin at the Synod of Iconium, celebrated between 230 and 235. The controversy on rebaptism is especially connected with the names of Pope St. Stephen and of St. Cyprian of Carthage. The latter was the main champion of the practice of rebaptizing. The pope, however, absolutely condemned the practice, and commanded that heretics on entering the Church should receive only the imposition of hands in paenitentiam. In this celebrated controversy it is to noted that Pope Stephen declares that he is upholding the primitive custom when he declares for the validity of baptism conferred by heretics.
This is from the Catholic Encylopedia article on baptism found at Newadvent.
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Ecclesiastical History, Book 7, is also at (in is in the beginning of it)
newadvent.org/fathers/250107.htm
 
If there were no pope before 400 AD then they can’t blame the Catholic Faith on the papacy. Instead, the Catholic Faith is due to the (name removed by moderator)ut of the whole Church. Your Protestant acquaintance is still out in left field.
 
Since he’s such a history buff, when you are done with your discussion on the Pope, you may want to point him to Jurgens’ book on the Early Fathers.
 
gomer tree:
Since he’s such a history buff, when you are done with your discussion on the Pope, you may want to point him to Jurgens’ book on the Early Fathers.
More specifically, “Faith of the Early Fathers” edited by Jergens. An excellent resourse.

It is important to keep the time frame of these writings in perspective. Jesus died around A. D. 30. The writings of the early Church for the next 30 to 40 years are those contained in the New Testament; with the possible exception of John’s writings. This brings us up to around A. D. 60 to 70. By this time, the Apostles had already spread the Faith into distant lands. Peter died somewhere around 64 to 67. The Church had already encountered and corrected some errors which had arisen, as is demonstrated by the writings of Paul. The Apostle John lived until around the year 100 so he would certainly have corrected any erroneous teaching which arose during his life. Many Christians were dying rather than deny even one aspect of their faith in horrible persecutions which lasted around two-hundred and fifty years. These Christians left us writings testifying what they believed; many of them are quoted by the authors of the essays in Armstrong’s Roman Catholicism. These Christians, and also many who escaped death, did not tolerate any erroneous teachings which arose within the Church. This brings us up to around the year 300. The writings from this period include many which correct heresy. The following Church writings from this period of time demonstrate that the Apostles taught their followers to accept that the successor of Peter in Rome is also the successor of his primacy over Christ’s Church.

In the year 96, while John the Apostle was still alive, Pope St. Clement of Rome1 warns certain disturbers among the Corinthians not to disobey what Christ had commanded through him, thus claiming clearly the authority of Vicar of Christ, and the right to command the whole Church as the successor of St. Peter. Not only did the Corinthians not object to his claiming the authority to make such commands, there is no record of John doing so. Clement was responding to requests from the Church at Corinth to settle a dispute they were having. Since John was still alive, why did they not make the request to him? The answer is that, even though John was one of the chosen Apostles, Clement was the head of the Church as the successor of Peter.

St. Ignatius the Martyr (died in A. D. 110), writing to the Church in Rome, wrote “…to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of Him that has willed everything which is; to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father: her therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.” He wrote to other Churches as well but did not give them the kind of praise he gives here to the Church in Rome. He does not declare any of the others to hold a place of presidency.

St. Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies (around A. D 180-199), in which he stated, “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” Irenaeus not only points out that authority within each Church (diocese) is entrusted to its bishop based on apostolic succession but that the Church in Rome is the head of the whole Church.

Pope St. Victor (189-198) commanded the bishops of Asia to celebrate Easter on the same day as the Church of Rome, threatening them with excommunication if they refused obedience. The bishops of Asia appealed to Victor showing that their custom of celebrating Easter on the fourteenth of Nissan originated with the Apostle NAME, who founded their Church. Victor accepted their appeal. The date on which Easter is celebrated is not a matter of doctrine. This shows both that the Pope claimed to have authority over the other Churches, even in non-doctrinal matters, and that those Churches accepted that authority.
 
Tertullian, writing around the year 200, responded to the claim that the Church had fallen into error: “Grant, then, that all have erred; that the Apostle was mistaken in bearing witness; that the Holy Spirit had no such consideration for any one Church as to lead it into truth, although He was sent for that purpose by Christ (John 14:26), who had asked the Father to make Him the Teacher of truth (John 15:26); that the Steward of God and Vicar of Christ3 (i.e., the Holy Spirit) neglected His office, and permitted the Churches for a time to understand otherwise and to believe otherwise than He Himself had preached through the Apostles: now, is it likely that so many and such great Churches should have gone astray into a unity of faith?”

Pope St. Callistus (217-222) declared against the Montanists that, by virtue of the Primacy, which he held as the successor of St. Peter, he had the power to forgive even the greatest sins.

St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote The Unity of the Catholic Church (ca A. D. 251-256). In it, he states, “…but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? …The Bride of Christ [the Church] cannot be defiled. She is inviolate and chaste. She knows but one home, and with a chaste modesty she guards the sanctity of one bedchamber. It is she that keeps us for God, she that seals for the kingdom the sons whom she bore. Whoever is separated from the church and is joined to an adulteress is separated from the promises of the Church; nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father who does not have the Church for his Mother. …Whoever holds not fast to this unity holds not to the law of God; neither does he keep faith with the Father and the Son, nor does he have life and salvation.”

Pope St. Stephen I (254-257) commanded the Asian and African Churches, under pain of excommunication, not to rebaptize heretics. Those Churches stopped the practice.

In the early fourth century, Pope St. Julius I (337-352) taught that difficulties arising among the bishops were to be decided by himself as the Supreme Judge.

These writings clearly show that the Bishops of Rome, from the very beginning of the Church, believed that they held authority over the whole Church and that the reason that they believed this is that they were the successors of St. Peter. The acceptance of this authority is revealed in these writings as well. The rejection of this authority was the founding principle of every heretical group in those times.
 
So stop using the term pope in this conversation and start using and interchanging the terms Bishop of Rome and Sucessor of Peter. Using language in this manner is like saying that we didn’t have cars in 1910 we had horseless carriages, we didn’t have cars until 1930!
 
That list is not merely of early fahters but of Bishops of Rome succesors to Peter…
 
40.png
KathieAnn:
Please tell me how I can respond to a Protestant who insists that the Catholic Church claims certain early fathers were popes who never were simply to make the case of apostolic succession. Here is a bit of our conversation starting with my comment:

And ordination of every priest can be
traced back to one of the apostles. FACT. By the way, you also said that some
that the Church considered popes were not. Who were these?
The term pope did not appear until Leo the Great in the mid 400’s. I know the apologist response to this (as I have heard all of the apologist responses you have given me to the other facts I have shown you). However, the historical fact is that there was no such thing as a pope before the mid 400’s.
I have a pope
chart which lists all the popes by name, birth, year of election and death.
Of course you do. The Roman Catholic church retroactively uses the term pope for certain early church fathers. That does not make it historically accurate. Study some history. Next to the Bible, history is probably the best argument against the Roman Catholic church.
End of our discussion and back to me here:
Now I know they didn’t have to called “pope” to be in apostolic succession but where are Protestants getting this idea that we invented our line of succession prior to mid 400’s? What “history” is he referring to? Are there historical documents prior to 400 or so that list our popes that are reliable? We have argued for a long time on many different topics, and he always claims to know history better than me and that the Catholic version of history is made up. Help!

Thanks!
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]).

Optatus:
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 A.D. 367]).

Epiphanius of Salamis:
“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 A.D. 375]).

Cyprian of Carthage:
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition A.D. 251]).

Ignatius of Antioch:
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).*
 
Popes:

St. Peter (Suffered Martyrdom on June 29, 67 AD)

St. Linus (67-76)

St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)

St. Clement I (88-97)

St. Evaristus (97-105)

St. Alexander I (105-115)

St. Sixtus I (115-125) – also called Xystus I

St. Telesphorus (125-136)

St. Hyginus (136-140)

St. Pius I (140-155)

St. Anicetus (155-166)

St. Soter (166-175)

St. Eleutherius (175-189)

St. Victor I (189-199)

St. Zephyrinus (199-217)

St. Callistus I (217-22)

St. Urban I (222-30)

St. Pontain (230-35)

St. Anterus (235-36)

St. Fabian (236-50)

St. Cornelius (251-53)

St. Lucius I (253-54)

St. Stephen I (254-257)

St. Sixtus II (257-258)

St. Dionysius (260-268)

St. Felix I (269-274)

St. Eutychian (275-283)

St. Caius (283-296)

St. Marcellinus (296-304)

St. Marcellus I (308-309)

St. Eusebius (309 or 310)

St. Miltiades (311-14)

St. Sylvester I (314-35)

St. Marcus (336)

St. Julius I (337-52)

St. Liberius (352-66)

St. Damasus I (366-83)

St. Siricius (384-99)

St. Anastasius I (399-401)
 
Finally…

Jerome:
“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 A.D. 396]).

“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).

Irenaeus:
The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. … To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (ibid., 3, 3, 3). A.D. 189]

The Little Labyrinth:
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).
 
Thank you everyone!!! From a busy mom of (almost) 9 who couldn’t possibly compete with this man’s claims to know history. I have no time to check into history myself but the more info I have the better. I give him a few things but he always claims it’s false history. This volume of quotes and examples is hard to refute.
 
40.png
KathieAnn:
Please tell me how I can respond to a Protestant who insists that the Catholic Church claims certain early fathers were popes who never were simply to make the case of apostolic succession.
The word “Pope” did come about after 400 A.D. but that does not mean that the Bishop of Rome was not the Succession of Peter (AKA the head of God’s Church on Earth). Your friend is either being intellectually dishonest with you or is really lacking in his understanding of the history of christianity.

Have your friend take a look at “History of the Church,” written by Bishop Eusibius around 312 A.D. (an easy to read english translation is available in paperback at Border’s bookstore). Have him see the careful attention/veneration that was paid to the Succession of Peter even 1700 years ago.
 
Also, the list of Bishops of Rome is in the whole of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. I have a hard copy of this and at the end the translator summarizes the Bishops of various churches mentioned in the writing, including those of Rome. I will compare it to the list provided above and see how close it is.

I highly recommend getting familiar with this work. It is a history of the Church written significantly before 400 AD. Also get the Jurgens work recommended above. It is a VERY useful resource.

Short of claiming that Catholics have forged all of this documentation (which is intellectually dishonest and few Protestants of note go this route these days) he is up a creek on this one. The more intellectually honest ones note that the writings are “not insprired” in order to explain the obvious difficulties that appear in the ECF writings. They are there.
 
If you go to the Catholic Encyclopedia–see www.newadvent.org, for example–and look up the following entries:
  • the Papacy
  • Pope St. Clement I
  • St. Ignatius of Antioch
  • St. Irenaeus of Lyons
  • Pope St. Victor I
  • Pope St. Stephen I
  • St. Cyprian of Carthage
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top