Comments on the pope

[sklippstein]

Today at 05:03 PM kern said this in Post #15

Yes, it is true. What we are doing here is an example of the logical fallacy "tu quoqum" (or some latin phrase like that) which is basically "well, you do it too."

The truth is, when someone says the word "Pope" is not in the Bible, all we can say is "You are correct," and then explain why that does not bother us.

As a separate issue, we can point out that other commonly accepted terms are not in the Bible either. We are not necessarily saying that to prove that the Pope is correct, we are merely saying that the fact that the word "Pope" is not found in the Bible is not relevant to the issue.

amen!

 

[Stormy]

I appreciate your answers. But all the words just tend to further confuse me.

OK... I take it that the actual office of Pope did not start with Peter?

Peter, or no one else, during his lifetime ever referred to him as a Pope.

Then when was the word Pope first used by the Church of Rome?

Also was the Church of Rome over all the other Christian churches from the beginning?

Did the Church in Rome rule over all the early churches that the other disciples were working?

I am not needing Bible verses. But there needs to be something that shows me that the Romans didn't merely take control after the death of Peter. I want something that shows that this is what Peter and the disciples intended for the church. The Romans were very powerful at that time. Were they not? Did they take control? Rather than being given it by Christ?

Please do not get angry. These are honest questions that weigh on my mind.

 

[seebs]

Well, I bet *that* will convert all the Catholics. Who wouldn't want to be more like someone as charitable and respectful of others as that?

 

[Stormy]

Linda: Please do not take offense. I did not read your post. I know what you believe and I know you have reasons for your beliefs. But at this point what you say will not carry any weight with me. You are against the Catholic Church... you have clearly shown that fact.

I am not against any Christian Church.

I am asking my question on this forum because I wish to know what Catholics understand.

 

[chelcb]

Stormy,

Yes Peter is the first pope but no he was not called pope. That came later on. OK... I take it that the actual office of Pope did not start with Peter?

The word Pope does not really have any significance as far as the office goes, it's just a name that means Papa

 

[KC Catholic]

Today at 08:53 PM Stormy said this in Post #24

.

I am asking my question on this forum because I wish to know what Catholics understand.

ADMINISTRATOR HAT ON

I have removed the posts by Linda4jesus. This is NOT a debate forum, nor is it a forum for Non-Catholics to refute the Catholic Church, it's teachings, it's history.

Please take those discussions to the IDD.

Thanks.


ADMINISTRATOR HAT OFF

 

[kern]

Today at 08:56 PM chelcb said this in Post #25
The word Pope does not really have any significance as far as the office goes, it's just a name that means Papa

Right -- it's sort of like saying that the Bible is a false book because the term "Holy Bible" was not used when the scriptures were first written.

-Chris

 

[dignitized]

Yesterday at 02:42 PM Stormy said this in Post #6

Could someone answer my question calmly, and clearly. I really just want yes or no answers. I am not out to debate, nor win any points for any cause, but rather just to gain knowledge for my own decision.

Did Peter, or any other disciple, ever refer to Peter as the Pope... or even acknowledge him to be the head of all the early Churches?

 

I know I’m gonna tick some one off with this but peter was NEVER pope. By the definition of the term pope, peter could never be one.

The full title of the pope according to a Catholic Dictionary is: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, and Sovereign of the State of the City of the Vatican.

Peter Could not be a bishop as a apostles. The bishops are the SUCCESSORS of the apsotles.

Peter could not have been the vicar of Christ since that title was not claimed until the middle ages - previously the pope was called the Vicar of St Peter.

Peter could not have been his own successor.

Peter would never claim to be the High Priest of the whole church since he identified Christ as High priest.

A primate is a bishop so No to that also as well as to Archbishop and Metropolitan since they require one to be a bishop also.

Peter was never a king either.

SO . . . Peter could not have been a pope because the very definition of the word precludes him from the office.

YES Peter was at Rome. YES Peter was first among the apostles But NO Peter was not pope.




 

 

[chelcb]

Br. Max,

Isn't that just nit picking around the truth that Peter was the head guy in charge after the birth of the Church at pentecost?

 

[Stormy]

Yesterday at 11:46 PM chelcb said this in Post #29 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=657807#post657807)

Br. Max,

Isn't that just nit picking around the truth that Peter was the head guy in charge after the birth of the Church at pentecost?

But you must understand Chelcb... I am not denying Peter.

This is my question....

I am not needing Bible verses. But there needs to be something that shows me that the Romans didn't merely take control after the death of Peter. I want something that shows that this is what Peter and the disciples intended for the church. The Romans were very powerful at that time. Were they not? Did they take control? Rather than being given it by Christ? It is the Romans that I wish to confront. How did they lay claim to the Christian religion? What makes you believe that Jesus, or Peter, or any of the disciples handed "the" church to the Romans? Or could they have used their power to take control of an institution that would carry so great an influence and provide riches to its owner.For it is becoming clear that Peter did not put himself above other Christians as does the Pope. I can not see the Roman's claim that Peter was the first Pope having any validity... for wouldn't Peter, himself, have to be willing? Just because he was more outspoken than the other disciples does not mean that he would have ever wanted the title of Pope. You can not make something true that is not true. If Peter was never a Pope... then the line of succession was broken .... even before it began! What evidence do you have that Peter passed a torch that he did not pick up?

In the back of my mind, the fact that the Vatican has its own euro, also causes me concern. Does the EU have any control over the Vatican? I do not trust the EU, or the man in charge of that organization. But maybe we should just stick to my original question.

I know that there is much good in the Catholic Church. I also know that it has many members that put me to shame.

So if these questions are offensive to you... I am sorry.

But I do not wish to post them in the debate forum. I could try to find information on the internet. But everything there is not factual... for it is always slanted one way or the other.

Someone posted that Peter and Paul left Rome for Italy... there they were killed. I want to know about that also.

 

[Wolseley]

Peter could not have been his own successor.

Come now, Br. Max, isn't that just a little silly?

That's like saying George Washington was not the first President, because he didn't inherit the job from a previous Administration, or that he couldn't be the first President because he was only in charge of 13 States instead of 50.

Somebody's gotta be first. And while I will agree with you that the office of the Holy Father evolved and grew to an extent over the centuries, simply saying that Peter was never the first Pope because in his day the office did not contain the ecclesial limits that it does today is erroneous logic, IMHO.

By that token, you could say that the Church---Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and Others---world-wide, is not Christianity because it doesn't remain fixed within the geographic confines where it was in the 1st century.

 

[Stormy]

Today at 07:48 AM Stormy said this in Post #30 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658285#post658285)

Someone posted that Peter and Paul left Rome for Italy... there they were killed. I want to know about that also.

OK.. This was my mistake. I read into this quote to arrive with the idea that Peter and Paul were killed in Italy...

St. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, Letter to Pope Soter, AD 170, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 2:25:8,

"You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and
Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time."

What I am finding is that both Peter and Paul were killed by the Romans.

Is this true?

 

[nyj]

Today at 09:21 AM Stormy said this in Post #32 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658369#post658369)

What I am finding is that both Peter and Paul were killed by the Romans.

Is this true?

Yes. Tradition tells us that Paul, being a Roman citizen, was beheaded. Peter was crucified upside-down.

 

[Stormy]

Today at 09:19 AM Wolseley said this in Post #31 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658365#post658365)

Come now, Br. Max, isn't that just a little silly?

That's like saying George Washington was not the first President, because he didn't inherit the job from a previous Administration.

Somebody's gotta be first. And while I will agree with you that the office of the Holy Father evolved and grew to an extent over the centuries, simply saying that Peter was never the first Pope because in his day the office did not contain the ecclesial limits that it does today is erroneous logic, IMHO.

This is a good example. The office of President was set up before the first President.

We do not have a President before the office.

What did Peter do that gave the authority of the Christian Churches to the Romans?

I can not see where Peter set up a church that in any way resembles the Royalty that comes from Rome.

 

[Wolseley]

There are dozens of references from the Patristic Fathers that clearly state that Peter and Paul were both in Rome, and that they were both martyred there---Paul by beheadment, Peter by crucifixion (some sources say upside-down, others do not specify).

I'll look some of them up for you later today, if somebody else doesn't beat me to it, but right now I have to take my son to the doctor and get this funky-looking rash he has checked out.

 

[Stormy]

Today at 09:24 AM nyj said this in Post #33 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658373#post658373)

Yes. Tradition tells us that Paul, being a Roman citizen, was beheaded. Peter was crucified upside-down.

OK... So if these two... who Jesus entrusted... were killed by the Romans... why were others allowed to keep the church going?

Or is this, in fact, when Rome seized control of Christianity?

 

[nyj]

Today at 09:31 AM Stormy said this in Post #34 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658383#post658383)

What did Peter do that gave the authority of the Christian Churches to the Romans?

I can not see where Peter set up a church that in any way resembles the Royalty that comes from Rome.

The following are excerpts from a book written by Orthodox theologians entitled "The Primacy of Peter : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church" edited by John Meyendorff (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992).

On the writings of St. Clement (AD 96)

"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. That was about the time at which her star ascended into the firmament of history in its brightest splendor...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...." (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." (page 125-126)

On the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (AD 116)

We find the first direct evidence about the priority of the Roman Church in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. 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)

On the writings of St. Ireneaus (AD 180)

"...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...." (page 128f, 133)

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num12.htm

 

[nyj]

Today at 09:33 AM Stormy said this in Post #36 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658389#post658389)

OK... So if these two... who Jesus entrusted... were killed by the Romans... why were others allowed to keep the church going?

Or is this, in fact, when Rome seized control of Christianity?

Why were others allowed to keep the church going? Because Peter and Paul selected individuals to continue to care for the churches they helped establish. This is clearly evidenced by Paul's writings to Timothy and Titus.

And... what do you mean by "when Rome seized control of Christianity"? As far as I know, there has never been any "seizure" of control. Rome has, from a very early age, been seen as "first amongst equals", where when disputes arose in areas of theology, the other churches would turn to Rome to act as liaison and arbiter.

 

[Stormy]

Today at 09:41 AM nyj said this in Post #38 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658396#post658396)

Why were others allowed to keep the church going? Because Peter and Paul selected individuals to continue to care for the churches they helped establish. This is clearly evidenced by Paul's writings to Timothy and Titus.

I will try to make myself more clear.

Why were Peter and Paul killed?

 

[nyj]

Today at 09:46 AM Stormy said this in Post #39 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658399#post658399)

Why were Peter and Paul killed?

Because they were Christians. They died during the persecution of the Christians during the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero.