There were no popes in the early church!

[swimstud]

I was reading an protestant website to help me see why so many protestants want us to leave our Church( they sure do have a lot of reasons) so I could learn the answers to their accusations. I came across this statement that Peter was not the first pope nor were there any other early popes. How would you respond to this accusation?

---

As for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church that its history can be traced back to Jesus Christ, Peter, or the other apostles, such claims lack both historical and Scriptural support. The true Church of Jesus Christ was not founded upon Peter, but upon Peter’s confession of Christ’s deity as recorded in Matthew 16:16: *"… Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. " *Peter was not the first pope nor is there any Scriptural justification whatever for such an office. Peter’s own inspired testimony as to his position and ministry is given in I Peter 5:1-4. He further identifies himself in 2 Peter 1:1 *as "a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ…’ *History confirms the fact that there were no popes in the early church nor even in the Roman Catholic Church during the first centuries of its existence.
________________________________________________

 

[metal1633]

swimstud:

I was reading an protestant website to help me see why so many protestants want us to leave our Church( they sure do have a lot of reasons) so I could learn the answers to their accusations. I came across this statement that Peter was not the first pope nor were there any other early popes. How would you respond to this accusation?

---

As for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church that its history can be traced back to Jesus Christ, Peter, or the other apostles, such claims lack both historical and Scriptural support. The true Church of Jesus Christ was not founded upon Peter, but upon Peter’s confession of Christ’s deity as recorded in Matthew 16:16: *"… Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. " *Peter was not the first pope nor is there any Scriptural justification whatever for such an office. Peter’s own inspired testimony as to his position and ministry is given in I Peter 5:1-4. He further identifies himself in 2 Peter 1:1 *as "a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ…’ *History confirms the fact that there were no popes in the early church nor even in the Roman Catholic Church during the first centuries of its existence.
________________________________________________

Respond? To what? Dont let their lies put you one the defensive. History shows quite the opposite of what they claim. The burden of proof is on them to show that history is wrong.

“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]).

 

[Bruised_Reed]

History confirms the fact that there were no popes in the early church nor even in the Roman Catholic Church during the first centuries of its existence.
________________________________________________
History does no such thing. Dictionaries and encylopedias discuss the early popes of the church starting with Peter. Statements like this should undermine the credibility of everything else the website says or what that individual or church teaches.
Check out Catholic Answers library for info on the popes.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

May I be candid here? I am a Catholic, baptized as an infant and raised Catholic. I went to private Catholic school for my first eight years of school. I was an excellent student. I am educated and I have a college degree.

Recent issues here in Massachusetts including dissent on Church teachings have caused me to really question my Church. Unlike Protestants I don’t just run after the latest fancy because I am upset. After all, Jesus was crucified in part by his own people.

I have studied and seen the truth of Catholic theology and doctrine on faith and morals.

However, I have lost some trust in the Church as an organization of imperfect men. I have suspicions that when we find a loose end we try to cover it up or rewrite something or slightly tweak soemthing to conform with the view of the men who run the Church. It seems like we are always trying to defend the faith by defending our own self image instead of trusting God to lead others to the truth of our faith. We seem to be quick to resort to threats of heresy, even acts of violence (in the past). I sometimes wonder if the Catholic Church ran the world how much abuse there would be. There seems to be no element within the Church to prevent abuses of power. Look at some of the early popes, this looked more like a struggle for power than humbly serving the Lord. Let us never forget that there are aspects of the Roman empire in our Church and perhaps in our cultural mentality.

I think Catholic theology is correct. However, I can no longer be quick to blame people when they look at our history and present day Church management and wonder about it. I think some of the people in the our Church may be responsible for many who do not become Catholic and therefore they incur any sin for the loss of salvation of some people. It seems to based too much on authority and power.

I have never stopped going to mass, nor do I intend to, but I struggle with this.

We need to stop being so defensive and open our hearts and reach out to the world. I think we need to stop being so insistent of the necessity of doctrines that perpetuate division and unite on doctrines that are essential for salvation. I think we need to allow people to be Catholic without having such rigid rules for what it means to be a Christian when Jesus did not seem to intend it to be that way at all. I think we have made the Pharisaical mistake of shifting more focus to the letter of Catholic law and less on the law of love that Jesus taught. At the very same time we do not even insist that priests follow the important laws, and this further damages the faith and the Church. I think in some ways, like the Pharisees, we are straining a gnat and swallowing a camel.

I would like to discuss further examples of this and how I would improve it if I were to make suggestions.

I also understand that the Church does tremendous good in the world.

With Love and Respect,
Greg

 

[Vincent]

Greg,

Frank Sheed wrote this many years ago:

"The Church. . .is Christ our Lord continuing to do through a body of men the same truth-giving, life-giving work that He did in His own natural Body while He was on earth. But the Church has a human side too, and the young should be shown the implications of this long before they leave school; otherwise their faith is going to be tried very bitterly. What Christ has guaranteed in the Church — truth without any alloy of error, life by way of the sacraments — is perfect. What the human members of the Church, from Popes to laymen, do on their own judgment varies from the highest sanctity to the lowest depths of sin. It is a wicked thing to leave children to find this out from the Church’s enemies when they have left school. . . .On this matter of what is called Scandals — varying from great crimes down to ordinary human failings — it is especially urgent that they should learn in school. Otherwise, when they hear them outside, they may begin by denying them and suffer the humiliation of defeat in a needless battle; and their faith may be shaken by a feeling that their teachers never mentioned these things because the Church is afraid of them. They will on this matter, at least, be unshakable if

"(a) they have been taught that the Church depends on Christ’s holiness, not on men’s; and

“(b) they realize that they are in the Church for the sake of the gifts of Truth and Life which Christ gives in it, not for the sake of the men through whom Christ gives them: the essential thing they get from the Church is union with our Lord to the level of their willingness to be united.”

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Also, I am open to being shown where I am wrong and I welcome it in order to deepen my faith and understanding. However, I am disillusioned at my experience of being a Catholic here in Massachusetts and I do not understand some things about how we run our Church.

Perhaps the greatest irony of all is that it is the Church’s tolerance of dissent that has caused me to lose trust. This tolerance made it clear to me beyond questionable doubt that the Church is simply not run properly. A properly run Church would never tolerate the nonsense that has been going on. I don’t mean to be impolite, but this is what I see. This has to go to the top. This further indicates that maybe there is something inherent in our structure that is wrong.

A woman wrote that in Detroit, faithful priests are turned away. I have heard of other such issues in seminaries. I’m sorry, but this is not a “problem”, this is a complete and utter insanity.

Look at Fr. McBrien. He’s a theology professor at the top Catholic University in the country. He goes on TV and says Jesus’ wife might have been at the last supper!!!

Half the Catholics vote pro-abortion.

I am not a member of VOTF and I oppose them because they dissent. However, I think we need to make some serious corrections with our Church. I have proposals, not criticism. I think it’s time for serious change. The current organization simply is not working well.

Greg

 

[Todd_Easton]

Personally, I think anyone who reads Matthew 16:17-19, Luke 12:41-46, and John 21:15-17, in light of Isaiah 22:15-24, with an open mind will come away with the true impression that Jesus was establishing Peter as the steward over his Kingdom on earth (the Church), and that Peter was just the first in a line of such stewards (popes) over the Church that will continue until Jesus’ return. I also think that anyone who reads the first twelve chapters of The Acts of the Apostles with an open mind will come away with the impression that Peter was indeed the leader of the Church after Jesus’ Ascension.

Coupled with the writings of many early Christian writers, such as Ignatius of Antioch (whom someone else quoted earlier) or Irenaeus of Lyon (quoted below) who was a disciple of St. John’s disciple Polycarp, anyone with an open mind cannot but come away with the impression that Peter and his successors, the bishops of Rome (the popes), are, by the will of Jesus Christ, set over the Church on earth until his return.

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” (Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3, about A.D. 189)

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Vincent:

Greg,

Frank Sheed wrote this many years ago:
On this matter of what is called Scandals — varying from great crimes down to ordinary human failings — it is especially urgent that they should learn in school. Otherwise, when they hear them outside, they may begin by denying them and suffer the humiliation of defeat in a needless battle; and their faith may be shaken by a feeling that their teachers never mentioned these things because the Church is afraid of them

Thank you Vincent. I really don’t mean to have an unpleasant attitude. This was very helpful. You are very kind.

Greg

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Todd Easton:

Personally, I think anyone who reads Matthew 16:17-19, Luke 12:41-46, and John 21:15-17, in light of Isaiah 22:15-24, with an open mind will come away with the true impression that Jesus was establishing Peter as the steward over his Kingdom on earth (the Church), and that Peter was just the first in a line of such stewards (popes) over the Church that will continue until Jesus’ return.

Yes, I agree and the popes have to be as humble to admit they are wrong as Peter was to Paul. Paul was called directly by Jesus and he corrected Peter. Maybe the Church needs to remember this model of operation also. The Pope apologized for all the wrongs we have done. Maybe it’s time to correct the wrongs in our organization today. He said himself we are in a crisis.

I think we have too much “Peter” and not enough “Paul”. “Peter” seems to have silenced “Paul”. It’s time for a little comeback of “Paul”. I think we need to remember his influence to show us that we may be out of balance.

St. Paul you guided our Church. Please pray for our guidance now.

Greg

 

[RBushlow]

swimstud:

I came across this statement that Peter was not the first pope nor were there any other early popes.

Simply denying the Truth does not refute it. I’d like to see some evidence (similar to what the Church has) showing the history of the Church and tracing who they think the Church leaders were back through two millenia of time to the Apostles and Christ.

 

[Pax]

swimstud,

Maybe our friends at the other website could tells us about these individuals from the early church. They are all listed in the line of early Popes.

St. Peter (32-67)
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) – also called Gaius
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)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus I (366-83)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22)
St. Celestine I (422-32)

 

[Pax]

Greg,

If I lived in Massachusetts I’d be discouraged too. I live out on the left coast and we have our share of problems so I can readily identify. There is indeed a lot of negative stuff, but there is much hope as well. I believe that our glorious Church has been like a sleeping giant that is just now starting to awaken. In spite of many things that I have witnessed that are negative, I have never been as enthusiastic about the faith as I am today.

While I see the scandals and hear many dissenters, I see some remarkably holy people as well. The world is going to hell in a hand basket and is dragging the unsuspecting with it. The spiritual alarm bells are going off everywhere and many people are finally taking notice. Remember always that there will be the wheat and the chaff. We must remain faithful regardless of what is going on around us. We are all patients in a spiritual hospital, but we are also the nurses and doctors.

Never lose heart. Our obedience is God’s way of perfecting us. Our love of God is paramount. We must pray and work to overcome evil in our midst. All aspects of society including our religious institutions are under attack. The cultural and moral barriers that were once strong, have now been over run. But there is hope. Pray and never lose heart. You will be in my prayers, and I hope that I will be in yours.

 

[CARose]

Greg,

I think we need to be careful to not leave Peter because of Judas. Also, Paul, even through called directly by Jesus, and as excellent a Theologean as he was, was not equivalent to Peter. He chastised Peter, but he did so with extreme Charity and Respect.

I wouldn’t begin to suggest I have the knowledge necessary to step up and chastise Peter. Remember, Paul, before being “blinded by the light” was the top student of the Top Rabbi and even then he was blind to the truth of the Holy Spirit and the Truth of Christianity. It was only when Christ called him that he was able to fully see that which had been directly before him all along.

Please be careful that you are not being tempted to be disobedient to the Church, which is the beloved spouse of our Dearly Beloved Christ. Pride in our own ability to “know better” is precisely the sin which resulted in Protestantism in the first place.

I fully appreciate that Martin Luther and John Calvin saw serious errors in the church of their time. However, I believe it was their own sinful pride which led them to leave the Church which had been pomised infallibility, rather than to work for change from within.

St. Francis misunderstood revelation when he thought he was being called to be a soldier. He later misunderstood how he was to “rebuild the church”. He started off to fight battles as a knight and then worked at stacking stones of physical church buildings, each only a mistaken interpretation of a true Revelation. Perhaps, in your heart of hearts, you are feeling drawn to take action. Pray for illumination by Our Lord Jesus Christ, so that you may respond in a way that builds your Faith, Hope and Charity, while restoring the Church Christ Loves without fail.

CARose

 

[Lorarose]

I think many people have a difficult time separating the Church as the institution comprised of fallible human beings - and the Church as the Bride of Christ comprised of infallible doctrine and moral teachings.

It is required that our popes pass on the deposit of faith untainted by error.
Most of the time it was good holy popes that did this.
Sometimes it was worldly, greedy, unfaithful popes that did this.

But ALL the popes passed on the faith without introducing error.
A few came close - but the Holy Spirit did not allow it.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

CARose:

He chastised Peter, but he did so with extreme Charity and Respect.

**Acts 15:2 **Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul…

CARose:

I think we need to be careful to not leave Peter because of Judas.

I’m not. I am telling Peter to wake up because Judas has taken over.

CARose:

St. Francis misunderstood revelation when he thought he was being called to be a soldier. He later misunderstood how he was to “rebuild the church”. He started off to fight battles as a knight and then worked at stacking stones of physical church buildings, each only a mistaken interpretation of a true Revelation. Perhaps, in your heart of hearts, you are feeling drawn to take action. Pray for illumination by Our Lord Jesus Christ, so that you may respond in a way that builds your Faith, Hope and Charity, while restoring the Church Christ Loves without fail.

Words of wisdom. Thank you Rose.

And don’t worry, I would never leave because I know where the truth about Jesus and He Himself is. The spiritual and psychological pain can be almost tremendous. I am less concerned now because I know Jesus does not hold me responsible if I can’t always get true teachings and advice from my Church.

Have you ever heard of Carol McKinley? She is a devout Catholic. She has a web site. She was actively involved in the Bishop’s parish (and weathered the scandal) but she just finally threw in the towel because they seem to embrace VOTF. She now has to drive (I think an hour or two) to a parish that she considers faithful to the magisterium.

Folks, I think we may need to be aware of some big changes coming soon. We can’t just go on the way we are. Don’t be surprised if the Church changes radically in the near future. The many wise men of God in the magisterium may be about to take some serious action. That’s what I think. Things have just gotten too insane. This is a hope that I cling to. Problems this serious don’t call for gradual change - this time for clearing the temple as Jesus did when the money changers were in the temple.

Greg

 

[dream_wanderer]

Getting back to the original topic I wonder if its the word Pope that is throwing people off. The Bishop of Rome always had precedence and throughout early church history were protected from error (read the history of how heretical teachings affected all the other bishops except the Church at Rome). I don’t know when the word Pope actually came into widespread use but they are right…the word Pope is not in the Bible…but then again neither is the word Trinity.

dream wanderer

 

[martino]

There have been popes ever since there have been bishops of Rome. The Church in Rome was started by the Apostle Peter himself. So to answer the question, yes there have always been popes.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

swimstud:

I was reading an protestant website to help me see why so many protestants want us to leave our Church( they sure do have a lot of reasons) so I could learn the answers to their accusations. I came across this statement that Peter was not the first pope nor were there any other early popes. How would you respond to this accusation?

---

As for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church that its history can be traced back to Jesus Christ, Peter, or the other apostles, such claims lack both historical and Scriptural support. The true Church of Jesus Christ was not founded upon Peter, but upon Peter’s confession of Christ’s deity as recorded in Matthew 16:16: *"… Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. " *Peter was not the first pope nor is there any Scriptural justification whatever for such an office. Peter’s own inspired testimony as to his position and ministry is given in I Peter 5:1-4. He further identifies himself in 2 Peter 1:1 *as "a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ…’ *History confirms the fact that there were no popes in the early church nor even in the Roman Catholic Church during the first centuries of its existence.
________________________________________________

Of course there were no “Popes” in the early Church. They were called “Bishops of Rome”, “Successors of Peter”, etc. The term "Pope did not come into use for the Bishop of Rome until 521 and was not universally used until the 11th century. But the office and function of the Pope was always there, clearly visible in the documents of the early Church.

Most Protestant Biblical scholars no longer try and defend the old Protestant stand on Matthew. The passage in John where Jesus makes Peter the shepherd of His flock is much more solid and clear about exactly what Peter’s successors role will be.

Most Protestants are willing to read Eusebius who speaks of the successors of Peter at Rome several times in his Ecclesiastical History.

 

[metal1633]

Br. Rich SFO:

Of course there were no “Popes” in the early Church. They were called “Bishops of Rome”, “Successors of Peter”, etc. The term "Pope did not come into use for the Bishop of Rome until 521 and was not universally used until the 11th century. But the office and function of the Pope was always there, clearly visible in the documents of the early Church.

Most Protestant Biblical scholars no longer try and defend the old Protestant stand on Matthew. The passage in John where Jesus makes Peter the shepherd of His flock is much more solid and clear about exactly what Peter’s successors role will be.

Most Protestants are willing to read Eusebius who speaks of the successors of Peter at Rome several times in his Ecclesiastical History.

I will add that ALL Metropolitan Bishops in the early days were called “Pope” and it was a term of Endearment. Papa. Father. Today only two of them are called that. The Bishop of Rome, Pope John Paul II and the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria Pope Shenouda III. The Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria, Stéphanos II, is a Catholic and In communion with Rome. John Paul II and Shenouda II are currently working towards unity.

 

[PTD]

Greg,

I certainly can appreciate your struggle. It often appears like the Church is a dinosaur, too big and unwieldy to respond to the dissenters who use the Church’s resources to spread heresy. But keep in mind 3 things:

1. A big part of the Church’s problems is not organizational but spiritual. Do YOU pray as much as you ought? I know I don’t. Furthermore, I and probably many Catholics are sometimes lax in pursuit of virtue. Instead of focusing on the few thousand bishops in the world, consider what the laity are doing, or not doing.
2. I don’t know how much of the problem is internal, and how much is external. There have always been dissenters such as Curran, McBrien, McCormick, Kung, and that whole clump; but never before has the media been there to give every dissenter their own microphone (which they the media do not offer to orthodox Catholics.) In other words, the media has found out that the best way to hammer Christianity is to attack the credibility of the leaders of the Catholic Church. Our Church is fighting struggles from the society that no other Church is facing. I think Evangelicals are recognizing this; they see that if the Catholic Church is the main target of anti-Chrisitian power structures, maybe the Catholic Church is worth looking into.
3. My name is Paul. You wouldn’t want a Church run by Pauls. Trust me.