There were no popes in the early church!

[twf]

Dave Armstrong, in A Biblical Defence of Catholicism (Chapter Ten) says this:

• It has often been argued to the contrary that Jesus called Peter petros (literally, “stone”), not petra (the word for “rock” in the passage), so that the “rock” wasn’t Peter, but this is simply explained by the necessity for a proper male name in Greek to be in the masculine gender. In Aramaic, however (the language Jesus spoke), the name kepha would have been used for both “rock” and “Peter.” Matthew could just as easily have used another Greek word for “stone,” lithos, in contrast to “rock,” but this would have distorted the unmistakable word-play of the passage, which is the whole point!*
  (© Copyright 2001, Dave Armstrong)

After this Jesus continues to use the singular you pronoun (so He is addressing Peter alone) and makes the following pronouncements:
“ 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.”

It is true, like Whistler said, that Jesus also gives this binding and loosing authority to the other apostles, but Protestants are missing three important points when they point this out:

1. Jesus specifically gives this authority to Peter, using the singular pronoun, while he gives the authority to the other apostles in a more general fashion (plural you) (this makes perfect sense to Catholics, as the bishops, as the successors of the apostles, also have teaching and disciplinary authority, but it is subservient to the head bishop, the Successor of Peter).
2. Jesus gave Peter alone the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
3. Jesus gave this authority of binding and loosing to Peter first before he did to any of the other apostles.

Now, binding and loosing is rabbinical terminology which referred to their authority to teach and impose disciplines. Jesus gave this binding and loosing authority (which the Pharisees and the like currently had…see Matthew 23:1-3, where Jesus commands His disciples to obey the Pharisees for they sit on the chair of Moses) to Peter, first of all, and then to the apostles, secondly, for the New Covenant. This authority, as I argued in earlier posts, and which can be further supported by what we see in the writings of the Church Fathers, starting in the early second, and perhaps even late first, centuries (follow my links in the earlier posts) was passed on to the bishops. This binding and loosing authority is recognized by God, for Jesus said “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (emphasis added)…so it is our Christian duty to obey the successors of the apostles (and especially the successor of their chief, Peter).

 

[twf]

Of binding and loosing, Marvin Vincent writes:
*No other terms were in more constant use in Rabbinic canon-law than those of binding and loosing. They represented the legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office. These powers Christ now transferred, . . . in their reality, to his apostles; the first, here, to Peter, as their representative, the second, after his resurrection, to the church (John 20:23) . . . *
(Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 (orig. 1887), 4 vols., vol. 1, 96, as quoted in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, Dave Armstrong).

The Keys to the Kingdom do not simply mean that Peter was the first to open up the Kingdom (by preaching the Gospel) to the Jews and to the Gentiles. That interpretation ignores the historical and Biblical context of what the ‘keys’ of a kingdom represented. In Biblical times, the term ‘the keys’ represented the authority of that kingdom. Kings would delegate authority to a steward or prime minister. To be given the keys (metaphorically) is to be given authority over that kingdom under the King. (This does not mean that Jesus was going to leave the Church solely in the hands of Peter and his successors…they would simply be the subordinate steward/governor/prime minister under the King that would directly govern the affairs of the Kingdom on earth and serve as a point of visible unity…like the other apostles did in a subordinate way). This concept can be seen in the Old Testament in the following passage:
“And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
and I will cloth him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a throne of glory to his father’s house.”
(Isa. 22:20-23, ASV, emphasis added).
Notice the clear parallels. Compare:

 

[twf]

And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
to what Jesus told Peter:
*“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.”*Again we see that possessing the keys of something represents authority in this verse:
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and none shall shut, and that shutteth and none openeth: (Rev. 3:7, ASV).
Here Christ possesses the key of David…but as we see in Matthew, He delegated some of this authority to Peter.
Keys of a Kingdom, in the ancient Middle East, always meant authority over that kingdom…we can not interpret the Bible outside the historical, Biblical, and cultural context.

Here’s another important Petrine passage:
15 So when they had broken their fast, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again a second time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Tend my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
(Matt. 21:15-17 ASV).
Jesus tells Peter to ‘feed my sheep’ three times, and asks Peter if he loves the Lord more than the other disciples. Jesus wanted Peter to feed even the other apostles.

 

[twf]

There are many more verses that support Peter’s primacy throughout the New Testament. For this I recommend you all to ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ112.HTM and scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html.

For more papers defending that Peter was the head of the Church on earth, under Christ please see (several of these include quotes from the Church Fathers supporting the primacy of the Roman bishop).
catholicoutlook.com/pope.html (This sites section on the papacy…includes a number of links).

The Authority of the Pope: Part I catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

The Authority of the Pope: Part II
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

Origins of Peter as Pope
catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp

Papal Infallibility
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Peter the Rock
catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

Peter’s Roman Residency
catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp

Was Peter in Rome?
catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

Peter’s Successors
catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp

(I’d like to thank Catholic Answers and Dave Armstrong in particular, for educating me on this subject).

 

[Exporter]

Greg McPherran,

Much of what you have written deserves a second look. I am not attempting to chastise you in the least, but I feel compelled to say the following.

Greg, you wrote that it seems to you that the Catholic Church should be all-inclusive. That is to absorb the Lutherans and a few other Protestant Denominations. They are called Denomination for a reason - they did protest against the Catholic Church. No matter how loving you are, Greg, they are Anti-Catholic!

When we in the 1960s, started having Mass in English, I was greatly disappointed…I still am. With the inclusion of fancy and unfamiliar songs sung at Mass, to me, is irritating. The more we become like the sing-song Protestants the more of our young will not know the difference between the Protestants and the Catholics. And the young will leave.

If next year we get a Papal Encyclical stating that every Bishop shall include all Lutherans and assorted “Christians” into our Catholic Churches - I believe that about half of the practicing Catholics would leave the Church. Why? I believe that about half of the practicing Catholics have little if any proper instruction of the Catholic Faith. They would say,“Hey, the Protestants are just like Catholics!” Yes, I think that “inclusion” would be a great detriment to our parishes.
Exporter

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I’d also refer them to the following from Eastern Orthodox scholars:

“Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of ‘church-with-priority’ at the end of the first century. …Even as early as the Epistle to the Romans, Rome seems to have stood out among all the churches as very important. Paul bears witness that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8)…we have a document which gives us our earliest reliable evidence that the Church of Rome stood in an exceptional position of authority in this period. This is the epistle of Clement of Rome…We know that Clement was ‘president’ of the Roman Church…” (THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church edited by John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992, page 124)

“The epistle is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth’s eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority…Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument.” (ibid, page 125-126)

"We find the first direct evidence about the priority of the Roman Church in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch [ca. AD 110]. Speaking of the Church of Rome, Ignatius uses the phrase ‘which presides’ in two passages… The Roman Church ‘presides’ in love, that is, in the concord based on love between all the local churches. The term ‘which presides’ [Greek given] needs no discussion; used in the masculine it means the bishop, for he, as head of the local church, sits in the ‘first place’ at the eucharistic assembly, that is, in the central seat. He is truly the president of his church…[Ignatius] pictured the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the ‘first place.’ So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord…In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome." (page 126-127)

"We shall find other evidence about the Roman position in **Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. His -Adversus Heareses- [ca. AD 189] **contains a famous passage, which has provoked a great many arguments. This is unquestionably the most important document of all with regard to the position of the Roman Church…Irenaeus calls on Apostolic Tradition to correct the mistaken heretics. This Tradition, he says, is guarded in every local church by the succession of bishops. It was not in his power to find proof of this in each local church, so he confines himself to one set of bishops only, and enumerates the bishops of Rome, a church in which Apostolic Tradition and the Faith proclaimed to mankind have been guarded up to his own times…Irenaeus believed he could confine himself to enumerating the succession in a single church, viz. the Roman Church, although he might have enumerated the successive bishops in every local church, as he says himself. He gives his own explanation for choosing the Church of Rome: he saw it as 'the very great and the very ancient church, known to all, which the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul founded and constituted.'

to be continued …

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued …

"…Irenaeus insists that anyone looking for the truth can find it in the Tradition of the Apostles, which every local church has preserved. So we must suppose he thought that the Apostolic Tradition and the Faith proclaimed to mankind were preserved in the Roman Church more fully than in others, or, at least, in a more manifest way. Later, Irenaeus points to this Church – Rome – as the one to which all other churches must -convenire-…I think a likelier sense of -convenire- here is ‘address oneself to,’ ‘turn to,’ ‘have recourse to.’ The sense of the remark would then be: every local church should have recourse to the Church of Rome…This passage in Irenaeus [from Against Heresies 3:4:1] illuminates the meaning of his remarks about the Church of Rome: if there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches."
“Rome’s vocation [in the “pre-Nicene period”] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition – that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine – and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome…” (ibid, page 128f, 133)

**"…according to his doctrine there should have really been one single bishop at the head of the Universal Church…**According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter’s throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter’s throne -par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian’s insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church [Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem]. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian’s passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est- the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise]." (ibid, page 98-99)

"Finally we come to the highest and ultimate form of primacy: universal primacy. An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox canonists simply to deny the existence of such primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local ‘centers of agreement’ or primacies, the Church has also known a universal primacy…
"It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – ‘presiding in agape,’ according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. …

"It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. … Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. (Schmemann, page 163-164)

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Expo,

Exporter:

I am not attempting to chastise you in the least, but I feel compelled to say the following.

That’s good to know.

Plus if you notice my last post, I already conceded. I accept correction.

Exporter:

No matter how loving you are, Greg, they are Anti-Catholic!

Then why does the Church (even the pope?) use the title “separated brethren”. That would seem too soft for anti-Catholics.

Greg

 

[Exporter]

Greg,

“Separated Brethern”, in my mind, is a polite and maybe a politically correct term for those who are not with us. I can’t read the mind of the Pope. He above all would want to be seen as leaving the door open, don’t you agree? But not to the detriment of watering down Doctrine.

Perhaps you have not experienced full fledged Anti-Catholocism, perhaps you have. My main point was this:

If the Holy Mother Church opened her arms to the Protestants by downplaying some of the Catholic Doctrines to appease the Protestants just so the Protestants would start attending our Catholic Churches, I say that is folly. The Devil Himself believes and knows all of our Doctrines, but He isn’t Catholic. What’s the importance of having a Big Tent?? I say that we could expect two things to happen:

1. Our youth would leave to go to the “easier” Protestant Church because they would think that then the Catholic Church is just like the Protestant Church.
2. The older and less informed Catholics would gradually drift away. Why, because the CAtholic Church would have become Protestant!!! Mass is now Protestant enough with singing, girl-alter-boys (ha) and the Mass saaid in English.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Exporter:

If the Holy Mother Church opened her arms to the Protestants by downplaying some of the Catholic Doctrines to appease the Protestants just so the Protestants would start attending our Catholic Churches, I say that is folly.

Makes sense. If they wouldn’t unite with us before certain teachings then those teachings may not always be the cause of division. Since the teachings are true, there is no sense not including them as matters of faith. Plus, part of Catholic doctrine is obedience to the magisterium, so even if a Protestant did not understand the Assumption for example, he would be ready to accept it on faith that the magisterium teaches correctly.

It does seem from Scripture that the early Church kept faith fairly simple for new believers. Believe in Jesus, be baptized, have communion, live morally, and so forth. Weren’t 3000 people (or a similar number) of people baptized in one day? It seems that they were accepted in without being educated about many other doctrines. Any thoughts on that perspective?

Greg

 

[RBushlow]

Greg_McPherran:

It does seem from Scripture that the early Church kept faith fairly simple for new believers. Believe in Jesus, be baptized, have communion, live morally, and so forth. Weren’t 3000 people (or a similar number) of people baptized in one day? . . . . Any thoughts on that perspective?

I believe that it was simple; repent, be baptized and follow the teaching authority given the Apostles by Jesus. Pretty much the same as now.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

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…

…

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, I understand your struggles. I’m sorry you have to deal with the constant defiant “so-called” Catholicism on the east coast.

I think accepting dissent on the Assumption, etc. would be a mistake… Frankly, their stubbornness not to accept the Truth of this fact would be a selfish act on their part.

As far as Catholics that are “less” Catholic than our separated bretheran, my personal thoughts are that they should be dealt with more severely than what is happening now. I don’t know what severity should be imposed, but something needs to be done because it is detrimental to getting the word out that the Church contains the truth of Christ’s will for all of us.

 

[Therese_Martin]

**General reminder:

This thread concerns the historical question of whether or not there were popes in the early Church; it is not a thread about disagreements or dissatisfactions with the Church. If the thread continues to drift it will have to be closed.**

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

General reminder:

This thread concerns the historical question of whether or not there were popes in the early Church; it is not a thread about disagreements or dissatisfactions with the Church. If the thread continues to drift it will have to be closed.

Sorry. I’ll try not to respond to unrelated topics within a thread in the future - or perhaps I’ll ask the person to pose the question in its own thread.

Ok, back on topic:

I do believe there were popes in the early Church. There is enough evidence for this Catholic based on the historical record.

I will say this much: the evidence isn’t a “slam dunk” case. However the evidence seems to favor there being popes in the early Church as opposed to there not being any.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

The Greek Church does not recognize the pope. However, I do believe that in the councils, the Greek Church recognized the Roman Bishophoric to carry more wieght. Can this be a clue to the role of the Bishop of Rome in the early Church?

Greg

 

[ahimsaman72]

metal1633:

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]).

With all due respect to Ignatius, the NT writings were written much earlier than 110 AD.

 

[ahimsaman72]

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

It must also be noted here that the NT writings were written early than most “early church history” documents by people such as Ignatius and other early Church fathers. Both NT writings and early church fathers must be looked at together as a whole. We must compare them for same thoughts and ideas.

 

[Amadeus]

Dear Greg:

The Greek Church does not recognize the pope. However, I do believe that in the councils, the Greek Church recognized the Roman Bishophoric to carry more wieght. Can this be a clue to the role of the Bishop of Rome in the early Church?

You statement is ambiguous.

Do you mean the Church of Greece, which is Orthodox, or the entire group of Eastern Churches, which is composed of so many Churches: Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Assyrians of the East and their respective counterparts in Catholicism, the Eastern (or Greek) Catholics?

The non-Catholic Eastern Churches recognize the Pope (and the Church of Rome) as having a “primacy of honor” and, grudgingly, a “primacy of jurisdiction” before the schism; some go farther as to include the post-schism period up to today. But not one of these Churches recognizes the Pope’s “supremacy of jurisdiction.”

The Eastern Catholics are in full communion with Rome and, therefore, recognize the Pope as Supreme Pontiff.

 

[mercygate]

Greg_McPherran:

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!!!

Greg

At least they’re attempting to rectify this sort of thing:

cin.org/users/james/files/mcbrien.htm

 

[ahimsaman72]

Greg_McPherran:

It does seem from Scripture that the early Church kept faith fairly simple for new believers. Believe in Jesus, be baptized, have communion, live morally, and so forth. Weren’t 3000 people (or a similar number) of people baptized in one day? It seems that they were accepted in without being educated about many other doctrines. Any thoughts on that perspective?

Greg

Good point Greg. I’ve never thought of that - as far as the instruction goes. I’ve always taken for granted that “Believe in Jesus, be baptized…etc etc” was common. In protestant traditions (especially Baptist) once you accept some basic beliefs - Jesus is God’s Son, redeemed us from sin, etc, etc you are baptized, profess your faith and boom - you can join the church. No year long conversion.