There were no popes in the early church!

[steve_b]

Greg_McPherran:

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.

These scandals have really hurt the Church, there is no denying it. A handful of priests and bishops compared to the entire priesthood and episcopal office world wide, are to blame in this. And these clerics have done tremendous damage. But we must remember, Jesus never promised an impeccable Church, only an infallible one. That’s not meant to excuse deplorable behavior of any sort.

Greg_McPherran:

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, …

Over the last 2000 years, there haven’t been that many corrupt popes. Maybe a handful or so. While they were so busy sinning, It’s important to point out that not one pope taught as an article of faith, * an untruth on faith and morals. They could hold erroneous thoughts on the subject of faith and morals, but not one taught those thoughts as an article of faith. Jesus has preserved His Church from teaching error on faith and morals.

Greg_McPherran:

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 agree. And we need to be very careful about this ourselves, individually in our daily interaction with others. We don’t want to be a hinderance in anyway to others looking at the Catholic Church.

Greg_McPherran:

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.

Which doctrines are you speaking of, that aren’t essential?

Greg_McPherran:

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.

If anything I’d say we have become too lax in this area, and not enough teaching is going on with regards to the faith. It’s not the Pharisaical approach to faith I worry about but the Laodicean approach. In my view, luke warm Catholics are in overabundance…

Greg_McPherran:

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

No ONE does more than the Catholic Church.*

 

[Emmaus]

Please go to this link and read especially the articles with the words of the Early Church Fathers on this subject.

catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

 

[Greg_McPherran]

steve b:

Which doctrines are you speaking of, that aren’t essential?

What I am thinking is perhaps we could unite Lutherans and other Christians with Catholicism by not requiring belief in certain doctrines such as Immaculate Conception, Assumption, and others. These are beautiful truths and I believe them. However, perhaps we could be more inclusive and allow more people under our wings as long as they believe in Jesus as God, the incarnation, His death and resurrection, the Real Presence in communion, the authority given by Jesus to the Church and more. The Church does not teach that non-Catholic Christians are not Christians, true? Why not widen our reach a little bit to include them without compromising “essentials” as long as they don’t reject other doctrines but not accept or understand them but might later? All of these are far from me to say of course, the magisterium is the authority. I propose this in order to illustrate my point.

Right now, we have many Catholics who supposedly accept all the doctrines but don’t even vote pro-life for example. We even have pro-abortion Catholic politicians. We also have a number of priests who dissent on teachings regarding artificial contraception, women priests, and more.

This is why I refer to straining a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Consider a Lutheran who is pro-life, uses NFP, attends services every Sunday, and is very unselfish.

Consider a Catholic who votes pro-abortion, uses birth control, and only attends mass on major holidays or misses some masses. (Such Catholics may be fairly common.)

Is it not plausible that the Lutheran is more in line with the heart of Catholicism?

Yet our Catholic boundaries exclude the holy of other faiths while retaining dissent and people who don’t take Catholicism seriously.

Our boundaries do not seem to reflect what Jesus might really be more concerned with. In today’s world, where there is so much division of Christians, perhaps we would serve God to revisit our priorities?

Greg

 

[EUSTACHIUS]

Greg_McPherran:

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 would also like to know what doctrines you think are not necessary. I sorry if you don’t like it, but the true divided. As Jesus said in Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.” The sword implies division. The biggest problem in the Church today is that ecumenism has run-a-muck. And people are more interested in pleasing man than pleasing God. We need to boldly proclaim the truth and then pray that God’s grace will open the hearts of the people who hear. Denying doctrine does not save people or yourself. Think of all the martyrs who gave up their lives rather than deny the truth. Do not give into despair. Jesus told St. Faustina that despair is the sin that offends him the most. For those who succumb to despair don’t trust in the Lord’s infinite mercy. All throughout history when the Church has been in trouble God has risen up great saints. This time is no different, just trust in the Lord. And have a great devotion to the Blessed Mother (and the Holy Rosary) for she will protect you from heresy and the enemy.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

EUSTACHIUS:

Do not give into despair. Jesus told St. Faustina that despair is the sin that offends him the most.

I don’t consider that I am despairing. I am offering thoughts. Care to comment on this:

Right now, we have many Catholics who supposedly accept all the doctrines but don’t even vote pro-life for example. We even have pro-abortion Catholic politicians. We also have a number of priests who dissent on teachings regarding artificial contraception, women priests, and more.

This is why I refer to straining a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Consider a Lutheran who is pro-life, uses NFP, attends services every Sunday, and is very unselfish.

Consider a Catholic who votes pro-abortion, uses birth control, and only attends mass on major holidays or misses some masses. (Such Catholics may be fairly common.)

Is it not plausible that the Lutheran is more in line with the heart of Catholicism?

Greg

 

[lsburk]

Right now, we have many Catholics who supposedly accept all the doctrines but don’t even vote pro-life for example. We even have pro-abortion Catholic politicians. We also have a number of priests who dissent on teachings regarding artificial contraception, women priests, and more.

This is why I refer to straining a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Consider a Lutheran who is pro-life, uses NFP, attends services every Sunday, and is very unselfish.

Consider a Catholic who votes pro-abortion, uses birth control, and only attends mass on major holidays or misses some masses. (Such Catholics may be fairly common.)

Is it not plausible that the Lutheran is more in line with the heart of Catholicism?

Greg

Greg, I would submit to you that the Catholic that does not live there faith is not Catholic at all. That is, they are not in communion with the Church. That is not our concern. We can try to educate them, pray for them, and encourage them to live in communion but we cannot judge them. Their judgement awaits them. As far as the Lutheran is concerned, you’re right. In the example you give, they are probably more in communion with our Church than some of our members. That, again, is not our concern. It is up to us to defend our faith. When you see something going on in the Church that violates the Roman Missal, report it to the liturgical director of the diocese. If that does not work, file a suit with Rome. When we, as members of the holy and apostolic Church, stand up for our Church, we will be heard. Don’t give politicians a pass on these issues.

Scott

 

[Pax]

Greg,

When Jesus is tempted by Satan, Jesus tells Satan that “man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Based on this and a few other things, I am afraid to imagine what might happen if we allowed heterodox teachings to enter the Church by way of allowing “partial” converts. That having been said, you still raise some important issues concerning “cafeteria Catholics” that buy into serious sin such as abortion etc. vis-a-vis a holy and worshipful Protestant.

Peter Kreeft has an excellent talk on Ecumenism that covers this very issue. He argues that he often feels like he has more in common with a flaming fundamentalist, that believes we worship the whore of Babylon and that we’re on a runnaway freight to Hades, than he does with many Catholics. The core issue is our love of God. Our common ground is always faith in Jesus Christ our savior. If we do not have this it doesn’t matter what other teachings we might have. This is clearly supported in scripture where Paul says in 1 Corinthians 16:22, “If any one has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed.” Unfortunately, many today appear to love the things of this world and themselves rather than God.

We need to evangelize Catholics just as we must evangelize non-Catholics. Catholics must love the Lord first and must love the Lord above all things. Sinfulness is rampant but it can be overcome. Let what you see and what disturbs you propel you forward in prayer and sacrifice and in evangelizing those in need. Let them see in you the most profound love of God that they have ever witnessed. The problems within our Church and society begin with us, and the solutions to these problems also begin with us by and through the grace of God. Let your light shine.

If you are interested in Peter Kreeft, you can go to peterkreeft.com and listen to his talks. They are really quite good.

 

[EUSTACHIUS]

Greg_McPherran:

Right now, we have many Catholics who supposedly accept all the doctrines but don’t even vote pro-life for example. We even have pro-abortion Catholic politicians. We also have a number of priests who dissent on teachings regarding artificial contraception, women priests, and more.

These people obviously do not accept all doctrines, and there is a simple solution to this problem; Excommunication! If a parent has a teenage or young adult child who is living in their house, but not following their rules, the good parent should kick that child out and give them a wakeup call. Excommunication doesn’t mean someone is damned, it just mean they are kicked out of the house until they repent. The Church need to start excommunication the people that you mentioned above; for their own good and for the good of the people that they could potentially lead astray. The sad thing is now-a-days only traditional catholics are threaten with excommunication. Again the problem comes down to being more interested in pleasing man than God. Pax is correct in that Catholic need to be evangelized, because when all Catholics start to act as Catholic should our action alone will be enough to convert people and we won’t need to use word.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Pax:

We need to evangelize Catholics just as we must evangelize non-Catholics. Catholics must love the Lord first and must love the Lord above all things…Let what you see and what disturbs you propel you forward in prayer and sacrifice and in evangelizing those in need. Let them see in you the most profound love of God that they have ever witnessed.

I will work towards that with God’s help.

May I share something with you. I was raised Catholic and fell away as a teenager and young adult. When I was twenty-five I wanted to know the truth. I read the Bible with meaningful perspective and real hunger for truth. I was immediately amazed and drawn to Jesus. I was very inspired by Jesus. I went to confession. I was very excited and positive about my faith. I felt so full of power (the good kind) and love (based on Jesus’ example) that I even considered that I had (parhaps have) the power to help heal. I consider that I was on the path of the pearl of great price. I was overjoyed and amazed about the Catholic teachings in the Cathechism and the power of truth they revealed. It never occured to me for example that contraception was wrong. When I read the teaching, I saw the glory of God in it and embraced it. These truths are part of my faith. My assumption was that I was finally returning to the Church of the holy. I never in my wildest dreams considered that any priest would do anything but remark at the beauty and truth of all teachings in the Catechism. I was the sinner returning to this new land of excitement and truth that was the Catholic Church.

Do you see where I am now?

Then, I begin speaking with priests and they reveal to me that married Catholics can practice contraception or not for selfish reasons, etc. All of a sudden, I’m in a state of shock. I am heartbroken. I knew I had found God Himself and nothing else matters. However, the priests did not seem to have that attitude (not all, but some).

So now, I am in the phase where I realize that I may not get full support from my own Church to be holy in the way that the magisterium teaches. This is a very difficult concept to reconcile. I have to be in the awkward position of disagreeing with some priests (whom I am called to respect) because I accept the teachings of the magisterium. Perhaps most difficult is in confession - the very sacrament of Jesus.

You see, like a child coming to God, I submit in humble obedience to the Church. However, when some priests don’t agree with Church teachings, I get thrown. If I wish to obey, my own priests sometimes disagree with me, when I wish to humbly submit to the Church as the authority of Jesus. Do you see how this can be difficult? It is no small matter.

Perhaps I should cease complaining. I wanted to give you some insight into why I speak the way I do.

I think a priest on EWTN said that at consecration, the priest is persona Christi. Also in confession the priest is in persona Christi-rue?

How can he be persona Christi if he dissents on some magisterial teachings?

Isn’t this a critical aspect of Catholicism?

Are many Catholics being denied this important reality?

Is my relationship with Jesus somehow limited by a priest who does not fully support the magisterium?

Should I just bypass any errors and look to Jesus?

Any insight appreciated.

Thank You,
Greg

 

[Pax]

Greg,

I’m a cradle catholic that never “left” the Church, but I did play cafeteria Catholic. I went through a second conversion almost identicle to yours. I share your experience and sentiments about the state of our precious household. It is heart breaking at times, and yet we must trust God and persevere. Your comments are pain filled, and they are painfully true.

Our priests come from us, the laity. If the laity is steeped in sin and overwhelmed and awed by the evils of the world then we can expect weakness in the leadership that emerges from our ranks. This situation does not have to remain this way. Notice how God’s grace has worked in yours and my lives. If God has done this great work of love and mercy in our hearts then surely He can and will do it in others. Pray for our priests and bishops and pray for our fellow Catholics and all of mankind.

Be a prayer warrior and pray before the Blessed Sacrament whenever you can. As prayer warriors we can be the tip of the spear in this battle for souls and for our beautiful household, the Church. God has called us to his purposes and He will turn all our tears into joy. Pray and never lose heart.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Pax:

Be a prayer warrior and pray before the Blessed Sacrament whenever you can. As prayer warriors we can be the tip of the spear in this battle for souls and for our beautiful household, the Church. God has called us to his purposes and He will turn all our tears into joy. Pray and never lose heart.

Thank you very kindly for listening, Pax. I heed your advice. (I must work full time so I may not be able to be before the Blessed Sacrament often.)

Thank You,
Greg

 

[rmpaul]

WOW! :clapping: Greg, you so eloquently put into words so many thoughts and concerns that go through my own mind. I don’t see you complaining, but rather you bring up some very valid issues. My folks left the church when I was very young (just after I was confirmed in 2ND GRADE! Can you believe it!); then I think they were scared off by V2. I returned 15+ years ago when pregnant with my oldest daughter. I was gone for nearly 25 years. Because I was so young when I left, most everything I have learned has been through my own study, prayer and involvement with church. Many things I learned or re-learned along side my children. I have had an insatiable craving of late to learn more about my Catholic heritage and the issues you bring up are many that I struggle with.

Pax, Greg and others, you give me understanding and assurance with many of these concerns and I appreciate your wisdom, patience and clarification. I have been confronted several times lately with strong anti-Catholicism, to the extent of which I did not know existed. Yet, by the grace of God, I am led back to find the answers and reassurance I need in the Church.

It’s a blessing that God has led me to this website.

 

[steve_b]

Greg_McPherran:

What I am thinking is perhaps we could unite Lutherans and other Christians with Catholicism by not requiring belief in certain doctrines such as Immaculate Conception, Assumption, and others. These are beautiful truths and I believe them. However, perhaps we could be more inclusive and allow more people under our wings as long as they believe in Jesus as God, the incarnation, His death and resurrection, the Real Presence in communion, the authority given by Jesus to the Church and more. The Church does not teach that non-Catholic Christians are not Christians, true? Why not widen our reach a little bit to include them without compromising “essentials” as long as they don’t reject other doctrines but not accept or understand them but might later? All of these are far from me to say of course, the magisterium is the authority. I propose this in order to illustrate my point.

Greg, I appreciate you wanting to reconcile all the divisions. But it can’t be done in my opinion the way you seggest for the following reasons. What you are suggesting is:

1. not unity.
2. Cafeteria Catholicism
3. giving permission to reject truth, and reject Jesus giving His authority to the Church to teach and to rule
4. Against the obedience of faith [Rm 1:5…]
5. contrary to 1COR 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

6 contrary to 1TIM 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

1. feeds into false ecumenism. 2TIM 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
2. conflicts with TIT 1:9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

9 minimizes TIT 2:1 You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, that’s my 2 cents.

Greg_McPherran:

Right now, we have many Catholics who supposedly accept all the doctrines but don’t even vote pro-life for example. We even have pro-abortion Catholic politicians. We also have a number of priests who dissent on teachings regarding artificial contraception, women priests, and more.

This is why I refer to straining a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Consider a Lutheran who is pro-life, uses NFP, attends services every Sunday, and is very unselfish.

Consider a Catholic who votes pro-abortion, uses birth control, and only attends mass on major holidays or misses some masses. (Such Catholics may be fairly common.)

Is it not plausible that the Lutheran is more in line with the heart of Catholicism?

Yet our Catholic boundaries exclude the holy of other faiths while retaining dissent and people who don’t take Catholicism seriously.

Our boundaries do not seem to reflect what Jesus might really be more concerned with. In today’s world, where there is so much division of Christians, perhaps we would serve God to revisit our priorities?

Greg

All good points. But Catholics behaving badly is no reason to relax the Church’s teachings for others. If anything, we should try and fire up the luke warm for their own sakes.

 

[Antonio_B]

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.
________________________________________________

History confirms the very opposite. May I recommend two books to you that will clarify much of your question. Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church by Stephen K. Ray and Jesus, Peter & The Keys A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren David Hess.

We have an unbroken chain of 264 Popes from St. Peter to John Paul II. It is true that in the early period of the history of the Church the first Popes were not called Popes, but nevertheless, that was their function. It would not be until after the end of the Roman persecutions that the Popes would begin to acquired the type of power and prestige that they had for centuries and still have today.
Go to Rome, walk inside the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, one of the four major basilicas of Rome, and you’ll see medallions of all our Popes from St. Peter to John Paul I. John Paul II’s medallion will only be place in there when he departs from this earth.

Antonio

 

[Antonio_B]

“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!!!”

Surely you don’t take McBrien seriously, do you? Don’t you know he is the poster boy for dissent in the United States and that’s precisely why the secular media loves him?

But I deviate, the original question has to do with whether we had Popes from the very beginning of the Church.

Antonio

 

[Greg_McPherran]

steve b:

Greg, I appreciate you wanting to reconcile all the divisions. But it can’t be done in my opinion the way you suggest for the following reasons.

You have basicly convinced me and I do understand. People here on CA have really helped me.

Thank You,
Greg

 

[twf]

Metal1633: The Bishop of Rome, Pope John Paul II and the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria Pope Shenouda III.
This isn’t quite true. The head of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt, which is an Oriental Orthodox Church (those churches Eastern that have been in schism since the Council of Chalcedon in the 5th century), is granted the title ‘pope’ as is the head of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch (Eastern Orthodox, the major west-east schism of the 11th century)…so there are three.

See cnewa.org/ecc-introduction.htm for an overview of Eastern Christianity.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I’d refer your antagonists to **Protestant church historian J.N.D. Kelly’s *Oxford Dictionary of Popes.***In it, Kelly provides a chronological listing of popes from Peter (d. c.64) to John Paul II.

This assertion of theirs seems more like one of the many Protestant versus Protestant disputes about history and religion that exists tody. I suggest they work out their disputes among themselves.

 

[twf]

In answer to the original question, the following are a couple posts I made for another forum originally, but have used here a couple of times, in defending the position that Christ instituted the papacy in Matthew 16.

Peter is the Rock of Matthew 16. Now like I said in an earlier post, Christ is the ultimate foundation of the Church…but there are other secondary and derivative foundations other than Christ as this verse proves:
Ephesians 2:19-20
19 So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,
20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone.
Christ is the ultimate foundation, but the apostles and prophets can also be considered a secondary foundation of the Church (the first layers if you will…like in the book of Revelation where the New Jerusalem has 12 layers of wall representing the 12 apostles).

Furthermore, in this specific passage that we are considering, Jesus is seen as the builder, not the building itself (…I will build…). Peter is to be the visible foundation of the Church after Christ was gone…a visible point of unity. His job would be to keep the Church united, to preach the Gospel, and with his fellow apostles, ensure that sound doctrine and proper discipline was kept.

 

[twf]

Let’s look at the passage:
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Who or what is the subject of verses 17 to 19? It is Peter. This should be quite clear, for Jesus starts his proclamation with “Blessed art though, Simon…” and then addresses Peter directly “and you are Peter…” and then continues to use the singular pronoun ‘you’ (it is singular in the Greek, check it out for yourself…he is not addressing the apostles as a whole, he is addressing Peter specifically). Peter is the subject. The name Peter means rock, and would appear as Kepha in the Aramaic (the language Jesus would probably have been speaking at the time), which was a very unusual name in that era, used only as a title or name, before this instance, when referring to God Himself in the Old Testament. Jesus clearly establishes who the Rock is (in this particular passage…like I said, Jesus is the ultimate rock of our faith) by directly telling Peter that he is rock. “You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my Church.” Peter is Kepha, and on Kepha Jesus would build His Church. (In the actual Gospel it is written in Greek, not Aramaic, but like I said, Jesus was probably speaking Aramaic, and there is only one word for rock in that language, Kepha). You can not go a few verses above and try to apply that subject to ‘this rock’ when Jesus has identified Peter as rock just a few words before…why did Jesus proclaim Peter rock and immediately thereafter state that He would build His church on ‘this rock’? It would make far more sense, if Peter is not the rock, for Jesus to simply say “I will build my Church on this rock”, but He did not…he clearly emphasized that Peter is Rock. There are many essays and such that do a wonderful job of defending this position…Catholics, and also many Protestants and Orthodox scholars agree that the language of this passage demands that Peter is the rock (again, a secondary and derivative foundation or layer ultimately supported by Christ…just how the apostles and prophets as a whole are the foundation of the Church, as the Bible clearly states, yet Christ is the chief cornerstone).