No pope before 400 AD?

[Malachi4U]

By this same logic - or lack of it - did Jesus exist before he was born? According to them NO?

The title of ‘Pope’ is based on a Greek word meaning ‘Father’ and was in fact added later. The ‘office’ and ‘authority’ of the ‘Pope’ were established by Christ.:yup:

Remember, names and titles change but that does not mean what they described were just invented when the title was.

Just one more way they try to mislead people.

Hum, we could also use their logic to prove their sect invalid too since we could say when were they invented?

 

[Robin_L.in_TX]

According to your friend’s reasoning, does that mean that the Blessed Trinity didn’t exist until we came up with a term to describe Him?

 

[agname]

Robin L. in TX:

According to your friend’s reasoning, does that mean that the Blessed Trinity didn’t exist until we came up with a term to describe Him?

Exactly. “Pope” is just a term to describe…as the Webster Dictionary states…“a prelate who as bishop of Rome is the head of the Roman Catholic Church.”

It’s obvious that the Apostolic Fathers…when addressing the Chair of Peter…Bishop of the the church at Rome…episcopate of the church at Rome…See of Rome…is in fact in regards to what we today commonly refer to as the “Pope”…which originates from the Greek…“Pappas”…“Papa.”

 

[weunice]

FYI, this list matches Eusebius’ Eccesiastical History (according to my translation which I mentioned had a list at the back derived from the text)… so we have this list prior to the council of Nicea.

Also, one of the endnotes from Book 7, which is the one I suggested reading, notes that Dionysius refers to his predecesor as the Greek (pi-alpha-pi-alpha-sigma). In this instance papas is used to refer to the “more aged and venerable prelates” … just an interesting aside there.

I like the car anology. I am going to deny the existence of cars prior to that time.

 

[Sirach14]

Ask your friend to provide one piece of writing before the year 400 that views the rock in Matthew 16:18, as anyone but Peter.

 

[Sirach14]

KathieAnn:

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.

Your friend may not be interested in truth or history. If he/she made up their mind that there is no pope, then don’t waste your time with this person.

 

[beng]

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!

From Patrick Madrid’s Pope Fiction

Fiction 3
The papacy is a medieval Roman invention. The early Church knew nothing of a “supreme pontiff.” Other bishops didn’t regard the bishop of Rome as having special authority to operate the way modern popes do.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said, “It is easy to find truth; it is hard to face it, and harder still to follow it.” This is certainly true for some when it comes to facing the historical evidence for the papacy in the early Church. The hard-core purveyors of pope fiction refuse to believe that the papacy was established by Christ. But if the equivalent of the modern papacy was merely a Roman invention of the eighth or ninth century, how do we explain the fact that for the preceding 700 years, the bishops of Rome were regarded (and regarded themselves) as having a special, unique authority and responsibility for the whole Church? Here are a few of the hundreds of examples that could be given.

The earliest account we have of a bishop of Rome exercising authority in another diocese comes from St. Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians. It was written by Clement, bishop of Rome, around the year A.D. 80. In it he responds to the Corinthians’ plea for his intervention. The entire letter is written in a fatherly, kind way, but it is also clear that Clement was quite aware he had a special authority. Two key phrases stand out as testimony of this: “But if any disobey the words spoken by Him [Christ] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in sin and no small danger”; and “For you will give us joy and gladness if, obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit, you root out the lawless anger of your jealousy” (59, 63). Clearly, this early bishop of Rome wrote as one who expected his words to be obeyed…

Read more from the link

 

[Happy_Wonderer]

If the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, what is the official story on Clement V (1305)? The center of the Church was in Avingon, France for a time. Was he sort of like the Bishop of Rome in exile?

hw

 

[cmom]

Its not the location that is important , it is the fact the Pope (where ever he is) is the direct successor of St Peter, and that makes him head of the Church.

 

[Happy_Wonderer]

I agree, but the argument was made that

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.

In fact there has not always been a bishop of Rome, or perhaps more accurately a bishop in Rome. I’m wondering (honestly) what the Catholic position is on this – how tied is the office of the Pope to the location of Rome?

There is also the matter of the three concurrent Popes and the unsavory political Popes. I am not that familiar with Catholic thinking – is an unbroken line of Popes all that important? There is after all, a period of time between popes when a new one is being elected.

What I’m trying to get at here for my own interest is a feeling for what is important about the succession of Popes. It is sort of interesting because the Pope doesn’t appoint his successor, one would assume that the Holy Spirit was guiding men’s affairs so that the right one was chosen. If for some reason it was decided ‘on high’ that it wasn’t necessary to have a Pope for awhile, would it shatter some important teaching?

hw

 

[Paul_Mac]

Tell your friend to check any encyclopedia. There he will see a chronological list of the popes of the Roman Catholic Church beginning with Peter.

 

[agname]

Happy Wonderer:

If the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, what is the official story on Clement V (1305)? The center of the Church was in Avingon, France for a time. Was he sort of like the Bishop of Rome in exile?

hw

Long story…read…

newadvent.org/cathen/02158a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/04020a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/03447a.htm

 

[agname]

More info on St. Catherine of Siena (Doctor of the Church)…who convinced the Pope to return to Rome.

ewtn.com/library/MARY/CATSIENA.HTM

 

[Gerard]

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 (More info on Popes and FAQ are available at Popechart.com)

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!