The Papacy

[MaxP]

A lot here believe it is an imagined office.

The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17.

Matthew:

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

John:

15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. 18 Amen, amen, I say to thee, When thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. 19 And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me

He is telling Peter to feed his sheep, to care for His flock: giving Peter supremacy to "feed" the Church.

I'm interested in those who deny the papacies' explanation of these.

Also, for those who believe the papacy cam along much later, I present these facts:

- Peter presided over the first Council at Jerusalem

- The letter of Clement(Pope 92-101) to the Church in Corinth, settling a dispute there. This proves the Pope was regarded as having supremacy over the whole Church.


I'm interested to hear the arguments against the papacy.

 

[Thekla]

Corinth was, at that time, a Roman colony.

The Romans under Lucius Mummius destroyed Corinth following a siege in 146 BC; when he entered the city Mummius put all the men to the sword and sold the women and children into slavery before he torched the city, for which he was given the cognomen Achaicus as the conqueror of the Achaean League (see Battle of Corinth). While there is archeological evidence of some minimal habitation in the years afterwards, Julius Caesar refounded the city as Colonia laus Iulia Corinthiensis in 44 BC shortly before his assassination. According to Appian, the new settlers were drawn from freedmen of Rome. Under the Romans it became the seat of government for Southern Greece or Achaia (according to Acts 18:12-26). It was noted for its wealth, and for the luxurious, immoral and vicious habits of the people. It had a large mixed population of Romans, Greeks, and Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinth

 

[Sphinx777]

The history of the Papacy is the history of both the spiritual role and the temporal role of the Roman pontiff over a timespan of almost 2,000 years from the arrival of Peter in Rome to the present day. The office of the Pope is called the Papacy. In addition to his spiritual role as head of the Catholic Church, the Pope also has a temporal role as Head of State of the independent sovereign State of the Vatican City, a city-state and nation entirely enclaved by the city of Rome.

The history of the Papacy's temporal role can be divided into three major time periods. Early Christianity, the Pope had no temporal power and served only as the spiritual head of the Christian church in Rome. Even in that spiritual role, it was contested whether the patriarchs of the other churches were subordinate to the bishop of Rome.

The second major time period runs roughly from the 4th Century until Rome and Latium were annexed by the Kingdom of Italy in 1870. During this time period, the Pope exerted varying amounts of temporal and spiritual power until the Papal states were slowly taken away from the Papacy in the 19th century. During this same period, the role of the Pope as spiritual leader of the Christian church was successfully challenged by the East-West Schism and the Protestant Reformation.

The third major time period runs from the end of the Pope's temporal power in the 19th century until the present day. During this period, the Papacy has asserted its spiritual role as leader of the Catholic Church.

 

[MaxP]

Corinth was, at that time, a Roman colony.

Yes. Point?

 

[Thekla]

Yes. Point?

Rome under the jurisdiction of Rome.

What of areas that wouldn't ordinarily fall within that jurisdiction ?
(Asia Minor, the Levant, etc)

 

[MaxP]

Rome under the jurisdiction of Rome.

What of areas that wouldn't ordinarily fall within that jurisdiction ?
(Asia Minor, the Levant, etc)

The legal jurisdiction of Rome, as a nation, had nothing to do with the Pope's authority over the entire Church.
That's like saying the Bishop of Washington is head of the American Churche because the rest of America is American province.

 

[sunlover1]

The legal jurisdiction of Rome, as a nation, had nothing to do with the Pope's authority over the entire Church.
That's like saying the Bishop of Washington is head of the American Churche because the rest of America is American province.

Who was the 'pope' in the NT?

 

[MaxP]

Who was the 'pope' in the NT?

The Church was established after Jesus died.
Jesus named Peter as the man to lead it and be Pope.

 

[sunlover1]

The Church was established after Jesus died.
Jesus named Peter as the man to lead it and be Pope.

You mean after Jesus ascended?
Why would he leave one man to lead HIS people.
He said that His sheep hear HIS voice...
Wouldnt that make Him the leader,
and another leader redundant?

 

[Thekla]

The legal jurisdiction of Rome, as a nation, had nothing to do with the Pope's authority over the entire Church.
That's like saying the Bishop of Washington is head of the American Churche because the rest of America is American province.

But how does one letter, within one's national realm translate into authority over all the Churches ?

If its the chair of Peter that confers such position,
wouldn't it fall to Antioch ?

I do dislike this discussion; I am EO. I remain so for a reason. Certainly, there are others more knowledgeable who would be better for this discussion.

 

[MaxP]

You mean after Jesus ascended?
Why would he leave one man to lead HIS people.
He said that His sheep hear HIS voice...
Wouldnt that make Him the leader,
and another leader redundant?

My bad, my bad, I meant ascended.

Christ IS the leader of the Church, the Pope is his Vicar on earth.

 

[MaxP]

But how does one letter, within one's national realm translate into authority over all the Churches ?

It proves he was regarded as having authority over more than just the Churches in Rome; this paired with scriptual evidence leads us to a logical conclusion.

If its the chair of Peter that confers such position,
wouldn't it fall to Antioch ?

The conference of Bishops elect a Pope. The chair has little to nothing to do with it. Also, the seat is in Rome because that is where it was established.

I do dislike this discussion; I am EO. I remain so for a reason. Certainly, there are others more knowledgeable who would be better for this discussion.

Very well.

 

[Hentenza]

The conference of Bishops elect a Pope. The chair has little to nothing to do with it. Also, the seat is in Rome because that is where it was established.

So who elected Linus?

 

[Standing Up]

Jerusalem, But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all [ye] that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Samaria, Who, when they (Peter and John) were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

Gentiles, While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Gentiles, Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

 

[sunlover1]

My bad, my bad, I meant ascended.

I thought you might, sometimes I'm so anal.. so... MY bad.

Christ IS the leader of the Church, the Pope is his Vicar on earth

I see. He did tell the guys that he was gonna send the Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is God right?
So if we have God here... on earth... why would we need another leader?

 

[Thekla]

to leave a remaining question:

How many of the ancient Sees agree with the position of Rome on this matter ?
And what do newer jurisdictions say (Russia) ?
Measure also the position of Cyprus, etc ...

 

[MaxP]

So who elected Linus?

Given there was no conference of Bishops, and much of his papacy is unknown, we don't really know.

 

[Hentenza]

Given there was no conference of Bishops, and much of his papacy is unknown, we don't really know.

How do you then know that he was indeed a pope?

 

[MaxP]

I see. He did tell the guys that he was gonna send the Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is God right?
So if we have God here... on earth... why would we need another leader?

He did send the Spirit, on Pentecost, the birthday of the Church, it came to the Apostles.
We have spirit here on earth, in the form of the Church and the Magisterium.
He sent it not to individually inspire each person(although He does that), but to guarantee the work of the Church is good.

 

[MaxP]

How do you then know that he was indeed a pope?

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his 2 Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:
After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm