The Pope and first 2 centuries

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dark_Warrior
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dark_Warrior

Guest
A friend of mine from Rose Creek Village, just came home to visit. He was telling me about their veiw of the Pope. While they have quite a bit of respect for the Catholic Church, they also find much of it corrupted, believing crimes are commited EVERYDAY in the Vatican.

Anyways, about the Pope, he was saying there was no Pope during the first 2 centuries of Christianity, only bishops, or an “arch-bishop,” but nowhere was there called any “Pope” in the line of catholic successions. And that the early Christians gave testimony to this.

Can anyone help me refute this? What does the term “Pope” mean and when did it come about? And is the line of succession more clear than what my friend says?
 
Just because Peter didn’t call himself the Pope dosen’t meant he wasn’t the Pope. Pope is the office of the bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, chief of the whole Church, and the Vicar of Christ on earth.

List of Popes: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

In “Against Heresies”, St. Irenaeus shows that Linus succeeded Peter and thus begins the Apostolic Succession.

Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus), Book III, Chapter 3:
  1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.
Click to expand...
I’ve quoted this part of the text of the chapter because I want to show you the saint is not lying.

In 2 Timothy 1:16-17, Paul says he is in Rome: “May the Lord grant mercy to the family of Onesiphorus because he often gave me new heart and was not ashamed of my chains. But when he came to Rome, he promptly searched for me and found me.”

In the same letter, verse 21, Paul says: “Try to get here before winter. Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers send greetings.”

So we see that Paul is in Rome with Linus.
 
Dark_Warrior said:
A friend of mine from Rose Creek Village, just came home to visit. He was telling me about their veiw of the Pope. While they have quite a bit of respect for the Catholic Church, they also find much of it corrupted, believing crimes are commited EVERYDAY in the Vatican.

Anyways, about the Pope, he was saying there was no Pope during the first 2 centuries of Christianity, only bishops, or an “arch-bishop,” but nowhere was there called any “Pope” in the line of catholic successions. And that the early Christians gave testimony to this.

Can anyone help me refute this? What does the term “Pope” mean and when did it come about? And is the line of succession more clear than what my friend says?
Click to expand...
Pope is English for Papa or father as in “spiritual father” following St. Paul’s idea.

Even today there are only Deacons, Priests, and Bishops. Archbishop, Cardinal, Pope, etc, are only titles of position or honor. The Pope is a Bishop! There is nothing above a Bishop in Apostolic Succession today except Christ. The pope does have responsibilities and functions above that of a local Bishop.

During the first two centuries with limited means of communication the Bishop of Rome did function in the role of head shepherd, or pope.
 
Crimes are committed every day in the Vatican. Which is why it has the lowest murder rate of anywhere except Antarctica and other similarly undeveloped places…

Honestly, this kind of lurid stuff is silly in today’s world. You can go to the Vatican and see that it’s mostly a bunch of old men in offices, young men and middle-aged women in bureaucracies, old ladies answering phones, and pretty pretty walls. The Swiss Guards don’t actually have a Ninja Elite Death Squad. And so forth.

Not only was there a Pope (Father, Papa, Patriarch), there were many bishops throughout the world called Pope! (The Copts still call their patriarch Pope, for instance.) It was natural to call your bishop “Father”; during the first century he was often the only priest in your city; there was only one parish and it was his church! St. Ignatius of Antioch, going to his martyrdom and writing letters on the way, admonishes people to cling to their bishop as a father (even if he’s a bad father, IIRC).

Now, there wasn’t as much going on in the second century, because there were a lot fewer Christians back then. But St. Clement of Rome (a pope) felt like he had the right not just to write letters of strong exhortation outside his diocese, like a bishop becoming a martyr. No, he wrote a letter giving orders to people in a faraway city on what to do and why. Gently phrased orders, yes, where Ignatius was pugnacious; but still way outside what even a prestigious teacher from elsewhere would have the right to say to the people of a brother, equal patriarch.

In short, this stuff is ridiculous, and your YouTube guy should go back to the books and read them this time.

Now the Orthodox and the Copts and such have a real argument, when they get into arguing whether all patriarchs/popes were equal brethren, or whether one of them was first among equals, and whether if it was Rome, did Rome have real power to make decisions or just influence. That’s got some meat and history to it, and we Catholics can go back and forth on it with them.

But this guy isn’t even in the ballpark.

Consult the Catholic Answers tracts; I think there’s one on the Church hierarchy.
 
Interesting comments. Did you guys check out the link on Youtube?
 
Irenaeus invents history. Peter and Paul did not found the church at Rome. That is not true. That contradicts the Bible. It was around before Paul ever went there. So Peter AND Paul were the first Pope(s) ? If there is a Pope, they both were because he did not seperate them.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Irenaeus invents history. Peter and Paul did not found the church at Rome. That is not true. That contradicts the Bible. It was around before Paul ever went there. So Peter AND Paul were the first Pope(s) ? If there is a Pope, they both were because he did not seperate them.
Click to expand...
Please refrain from making comments. I am looking for Catholic answers only since this was addressed against Catholicism.

Besides, everything in the Bible can be a contradicttion.

Anyhow, please respect my words.
 
Dark_Warrior said:
Please refrain from making comments. I am looking for Catholic answers only since this was addressed against Catholicism.

Besides, everything in the Bible can be a contradicttion.

Anyhow, please respect my words.
Click to expand...
Can’t refuse a please, will do.
 
Mintaka said:
Crimes are committed every day in the Vatican. Which is why it has the lowest murder rate of anywhere except Antarctica and other similarly undeveloped places…
Click to expand...
…But an unfortunately high pick-pocketing rate… 😦

tee
 
As others have said, anyone can call whoever they want Pope, including the Catholic Church. It means Papa.

The word Pope is not copywrited by the Catholic Church and there would be no point if it was. In a sense anyone who is a father figure in this world could be called a Papa.

The important aspect here is the role Peter and his successors played as the Bishop of Rome. It is plain to see in history that the Bishop of Rome had a special authority in comparison to other Bishops. They are first among equals, the office that others appeal to when there is a disagreement. If you would like some information on this we can supply some. Are you interested in that?

Granted, the title “Pope” did not exist until centuries later, but the office did.
 
Let’s see: Pope St. Victor may not have gone by the name of* Il Papa*, but he certainly felt he had the authority to ex-communicate the entire Eastern Church in the 2nd century.
 
I just watched the video now. You can easily refute the claims with a simple understanding of Bible terms, such as “elders”, “presybters”, etc. You can learn more about these terms by going to www.newadvent.org, or by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

By the way, for a guy who says he’s an expert on the secent century, he sure dosen’t know too much. And since his whole argument is based on misconceptions of biblical terms, it’s a fallacy, whereby his whole argument is invalid.

Arguments against Christ and His Church always contain three ingredients: fallacies, misconceptions or false ideas, and historical claims without a source of evidence for said claims.
 
Eucharisted said:
I just watched the video now. You can easily refute the claims with a simple understanding of Bible terms, such as “elders”, “presybters”, etc. You can learn more about these terms by going to www.newadvent.org, or by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

By the way, for a guy who says he’s an expert on the secent century, he sure dosen’t know too much. And since his whole argument is based on misconceptions of biblical terms, it’s a fallacy, whereby his whole argument is invalid.

Arguments against Christ and His Church always contain three ingredients: fallacies, misconceptions or false ideas, and historical claims without a source of evidence for said claims.
Click to expand...
If you have the time, could you analyze a few points about the video?
 
Rightlydivide said:
Irenaeus invents history. Peter and Paul did not found the church at Rome. That is not true. That contradicts the Bible. It was around before Paul ever went there. So Peter AND Paul were the first Pope(s) ? If there is a Pope, they both were because he did not seperate them.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Well there you go. That proves it.
 
Nevermind, now it makes sense.

“Vatican has highest crime rate in the world” makes for a much better headline that “Tourists are victims of criminals”.

Chuck

"According to the most recent published statistics, 472 criminal cases were reported in 2006 – almost one crime per resident for a country with only 492 inhabitants.

But those figures are deceiving since the high crime rate stems from the sheer volume of people – some 18 million each year-- that stream through the Vatican to visit St. Peter’s Basilica and the Vatican Museums.

However, not long ago there was a short-lived golden age of a crime-free Vatican. For two weeks during the papal transition in April 2005 no crimes were reported and no charges were brought to the Vatican’s court."
 
You know what’s silly, those assertions about crimes constantly being committed by the Church leadership are ridiculous. People see it on TV and in the movies, they think these guys dressed in black robes are corrupt, and for some reason they can’t draw the distiction between reality and fiction. It’s very stupid. As a political scientist, I think it’s safe for me to tell you that if the Vatican really were like that, it would not have survived. Corrupt systems have a way of collapsing because people wouldn’t tolerate it anymore, yet the Vatican is still going strong.

A lot of this is due to historical bias against the Catholic Church that American protestants had since they arrived in the New World. The bias still exists. Of course though, if you ask your friend if he or she is biased against the Catholic Church, the answer would be “no.” The reason for that is that nobody believes themselves to be biased, even though bias is natural in every human being.

So, ask why they think these things about the Vatican. Can they provide facts? Look up those facts and see if they’re true. It is not your job to defend every single thing that every single Catholic has done throughout history, but you’ll find a lot of their reasons for feeling apprehension against the Vatican will be baseless. I mean, those men are all priests; if they’re really that greedy, why’d they take the vow of poverty in the first place? All logic is thrown out the window when people are bigots against us.

It is true, though, that the Vatican City State has a high crime rate, but it’s not what you think. The Vatican’s population is low, but it gets a lot of tourists. These tourists are preyed upon by pickpockets and petty thieves. That’s the extent of it; I read that if you just calculate it that way, the Vatican would actually have the highest crime rate in the world. But, again, that’s just half the story – it’s the amount of pickpocketing divided by the small population that would make it seem like the Vatican really is the beast.

But regarding the title of “Pope,” yeah, Peter didn’t use it, but it’s just a title. The Pope is by definition the Bishop of Rome, a post that was looked to for leadership by all bishops since the beginning. He could name himself Ronald McDonald and it won’t matter. A pope by any other name is just as Petrine.
 
On the comments of this guy’s video a Catholic made a response and Shammahbn (the poster of the video) said in return:

“If you listen to the teaching, you’ll see that a comment about Peter is not a comment about the Pope. Cyprian says even stronger things about Peter, and he applies it to bishops in general, but it’s clear that he did not recognize a Pope in Rome. There’s nothing in Clement’s statement mentioning Rome or even a bishop. It’s a big leap of logic to take a statement that Peter is the preeminent disciple and turn it into a statement that there’s a Pope in Rome.”

I don’t know where this guy is coming from, seriously!
 
JesuXPIPassio said:
It is true, though, that the Vatican City State has a high crime rate, but it’s not what you think. The Vatican’s population is low, but it gets a lot of tourists. These tourists are preyed upon by pickpockets and petty thieves. That’s the extent of it; I read that if you just calculate it that way, the Vatican would actually have the highest crime rate in the world. But, again, that’s just half the story – it’s the amount of pickpocketing divided by the small population that would make it seem like the Vatican really is the beast.
Click to expand...
Haha, I bet if you told an anti-Catholic that Vatican City-State has the highest crime rate of any in the world they would immediately have ideas of Pope Benedict hiding behind statues and jumping out to mug the unsuspecting tourists. No wonder the Church has so much money!!! LOL, funny image.

Anyways, I would suspect that yearly there is an innumerably times more people visiting the Vatican than ever lived there, including tourists and theives. I would venture to say that the actual residents of the Vatican would exhibit the lowest crime rate in the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top