Papacy began in the 500 or 600s


#1

That was a claim that a friend, a very good friend made to me last weekend. I finally asked him via e-mail what did he mean? The word, “Pope”? The “Donation of Constantine” allegation? I got the following e-mail.

"This is where I found out some of the information:

[/font]http://www.contenderministries.org/Catholicism/papalfallacy.php

[/font]http://www.contenderministries.org/Catholicism/papalfallacy1.php

I’m pretty sure that you’re going to scream, “BULLOCKS!” at it a whole bunch, but I would also like to see some evidence that there has always been a pope.

Let me recall back to the time that you said that you hated it when churches made little charts that claim they are the original church. Afterwards, you showed me a chart that claims that there has always been a pope. They are all the same charts to me. I know that the Church of Christ has made a chart, and I don’t believe that that particular chart is true. I do, however, believe that Orthodox Christianity has always been around. So if you can find me conclusive evidence (and not just scriptual evidence) that there has always been a pope, please show me. Oh, and if it can be evidence that is outside of your church, that would make it stronger, for many churches have tampered with their own history to make themselves look clean.

In Christ,

name

PS: For keeping an open mind and strength in researching read Acts 17:11."

To tell you the truth, I haven’t opened those links because I’m not sure of the fallacies I will find. Can all this be answered with letters from the Church Fathers? Help me out you guys. I don’t want to get upset over this.

ALSO, he IS a VERY good friend!! I do not feel he is anti-Catholic or anything. He DOES believe in truth & Jesus’ love & he attended a weekday Mass with me (commenting, “That’s just like my friend’s Luteran church” – :rolleyes: ) I say this because he is really not antagonistic so that is not the way to approach him. ALSO, should I point out that in Acts 17:11 the scriptures included the Deutero Canon as well?

Please help me & pray for this guy. I just don’t have the strength to open those threads alone. I KNOW the Papacy has been around for 2000 years!!! I KNOW it has, BUT, can I show this to him? Also, where is it where a dispute was settled by the 4th pope instead of John on Patmos? Thank you!!!


#2

from his Email << So if you can find me conclusive evidence (and not just scriptual evidence) that there has always been a pope, please show me. >>

Augustine on Papacy

and see the rest linked: Cyprian, Athanasius, Jerome, John Chrysostom

And don’t forget Steve Ray’s Upon This Rock with his articles

The evidence is there, how much does he require? :thumbsup:

Phil P


#3

[quote=PhilVaz]from his Email << So if you can find me conclusive evidence (and not just scriptual evidence) that there has always been a pope, please show me. >>

Augustine on Papacy

and see the rest linked: Cyprian, Athanasius, Jerome, John Chrysostom

And don’t forget Steve Ray’s Upon This Rock with his articles

The evidence is there, how much does he require? :thumbsup:

Phil P
[/quote]

I know, I know, I know. I just, when I heard this, was troubled that he didn’t further look into it, and I wanted to share this will this forum anyway, just in case it progressed out of control. I just want the moral support here & such. Did you open his links? Anything particularly throwing or anything? I know that there is PLENTY of evidence. I know, I just wanted others to help me through this…and I thank you & will ask God to bless you, Phil P!! :slight_smile: Thank you.


#4

Yes I read some of his links. Here is a quote:

<< Nor will you find Rome confessing to the faithful Roman Catholic laity, that the great Augustine, joined by Cyril, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and delegates to the Council of Chalcedon, declared the rock upon which Christ would build His Church was Christ himself, not the Apostle Peter. That is not this writer’s opinion or pipedream. That is hard, cold, unyielding history. >>

Pretty much put to rest by Steve Ray and the John Chapman articles I linked above. :yawn:

<< More history, easily checked by those seeking truth and not vindication of false teachings: at the FIFTH CENTURY Council of Carthage, (AD 412) convoked by that city’s bishop Aurelius, the assembled prelates drafted a letter to the bishop of Rome warning him not to accept for ruling appeals from African bishops >>

Council of Chalcedon and the Papacy

The Byzantine Plot by Luke Rivington

:sleep: Wake me up when its over. :smiley:

<< The first bishop of Rome to wield the kind of power for which the papacy is now known, was Gregory 1 (Gregory the Great) whose 14-year episcopate began in the very last decade of the SIXTH CENTURY – AD 590-604. But this man was adamantly opposed to the very papal office that the Vatican insists he occupied as the 64th successor to the Apostle Peter. In a letter to Maurice, the Emperor, Gregory had this to say: “I confidently affirm that who so calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, (Pontifex Maximus), in his pride goes before anti-Christ……St. Peter is not called Universal Apostle ….Far from CHRISTIAN (not Catholic) hearts be that blasphemous name.” >>

:yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

Pope Gregory the Great and the “universal bishop” controversy

The Primacy of Peter, the Papacy, and Apostolic Succession

Phil P


#5

[quote=PhilVaz]Yes I read some of his links. Here is a quote:

<< Nor will you find Rome confessing to the faithful Roman Catholic laity, that the great Augustine, joined by Cyril, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and delegates to the Council of Chalcedon, declared the rock upon which Christ would build His Church was Christ himself, not the Apostle Peter. That is not this writer’s opinion or pipedream. That is hard, cold, unyielding history. >>

Pretty much put to rest by Steve Ray and the John Chapman articles I linked above. :yawn:

<< More history, easily checked by those seeking truth and not vindication of false teachings: at the FIFTH CENTURY Council of Carthage, (AD 412) convoked by that city’s bishop Aurelius, the assembled prelates drafted a letter to the bishop of Rome warning him not to accept for ruling appeals from African bishops >>

Council of Chalcedon and the Papacy

The Byzantine Plot by Luke Rivington

:sleep: Wake me up when its over. :smiley:

<< The first bishop of Rome to wield the kind of power for which the papacy is now known, was Gregory 1 (Gregory the Great) whose 14-year episcopate began in the very last decade of the SIXTH CENTURY – AD 590-604. But this man was adamantly opposed to the very papal office that the Vatican insists he occupied as the 64th successor to the Apostle Peter. In a letter to Maurice, the Emperor, Gregory had this to say: “I confidently affirm that who so calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, (Pontifex Maximus), in his pride goes before anti-Christ……St. Peter is not called Universal Apostle ….Far from CHRISTIAN (not Catholic) hearts be that blasphemous name.” >>

:yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

Pope Gregory the Great and the “universal bishop” controversy

The Primacy of Peter, the Papacy, and Apostolic Succession

Phil P
[/quote]

The links you provide are Catholic Answers, right? Again. I thank you SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO much!!! May God bless you muchly!!!


#6

I Contenderministries found to be an anti-catholic website. I started going through it once and when I read the part that said that the Catholic Church “added” books to the bible I sent them an e-mail telling they were wrong. They responded with outrageous claims and when I corrected them and gave them proof as to the canon and told them that they were actually spreading “false witness” and violating God commandments they refused to continue any type of debate. Just stay away from that website…


#7

It’s not my purpose to push my own books, but you might find answers to some of his accusations here:

christianforums.com/t922262-the-boettner-list-fact-or-fiction.html


#8

Com’on people! I can’t believe were still debating this well know fact. We ALL know the Catholic Church was founded in 606 A.D. by Pope Bonifice III. :yup: Any other opinion, is, well, Catholic and therefor bias and untrue and should be ignored as unreasonable and pope-ish. See this site for proof:

svic.net/kerux/origin_of_denominations.htm


#9

[quote=Malachi4U]Com’on people! I can’t believe were still debating this well know fact. We ALL know the Catholic Church was founded in 606 A.D. by Pope Bonifice III. :yup: Any other opinion, is, well, Catholic and therefor bias and untrue and should be ignored as unreasonable and pope-ish. See this site for proof:

svic.net/kerux/origin_of_denominations.htm
[/quote]

Hilarious! Thanks Malachi, I really needed that today.


#10

"This is where I found out some of the information:

[/font]http://www.contenderministries.org/Catholicism/papalfallacy1.php[font=Courier New]
Oh, and if it can be evidence that is outside of your church, that would make it stronger, for many churches have tampered with their own history to make themselves look clean.

Soooo…He can send you anti-Catholic links to bolster his case, but he insists you provide proof from outside the Church? :hmmm: Some friend.


#11

I thank you ALL for giving this thread attention & replies!!! :smiley: Thank you so much!!!

Fidelis: You know, I was surprised to hear him say this because he typically DOES look at things objectively. He really isn’t antagonistic all things considered.

AND, after looking at those sites, I must thank you again, Phil P for them. GREAT!!! :smiley:


#12

<< FIFTH CENTURY Council of Carthage, (AD 412) convoked by that city’s bishop Aurelius, the assembled prelates drafted a letter to the bishop of Rome warning him not to accept for ruling appeals from African bishops, deacons or other clerics. Besides that, he was forbidden to send any further emissaries or legates to the African churches. In another council of African churches, that one at Melvie, Augustine was the secretary. History shows he fully supported the synod’s decree of excommunication leveled at any in the African churches who would seek settlement of appeals or disputes outside of Africa or from the Roman See. >>

I should have quoted this from John Chapman’s Augustine, Pelagianism, and the Holy See article:

Letter from Five Bishops to Pope Innocent I

But we may learn more from a third letter, longer and less formal, which was taken by Bishop Julius to Rome, signed jointly by five Bishops – viz., Aurelius the Primate, Augustine, Alypius, Evodius and Possidius, five great names.

“Of the rest of the accusations against him doubtless your beatitude will judge in the same way as the acts of the two Councils. Doubtless your kindness of heart will pardon us for having sent to your Holiness a longer letter than you might perhaps have wished. For we do not pour back our little stream for the purpose of replenishing your great fountain (non enim riuulum nostrum tuo largo fonti augendo refundimus); but in the great temptation of these times (from which may He deliver us to whom we say, ‘and lead us not into temptation’) we wish it to be approved by you whether our stream, though small, flows from the same head of water as your abundant river, and to be consoled by your answer in the common participation of the same grace.”

Again St. Augustine relates that while Celestius refused at Rome to condemn the views which Paulinus accused him of holding, which was equivalent to denying the authority of the Council of Carthage in 411, from which he had appealed, yet “he did not dare to resist the letters of the blessed pope Innocent,” the same Innocent who condemned Pelagius and Celestius.

"And the words of the venerable Bishop Innocent to the Council of Carthage…What more plain and clear than this sentence of the Apostolic See? To this Celestius professed to consent when…he answered: ‘I condemn them according to the sentence of your holy predecessor Innocent.’…“What of that which the same Pope wrote in answer to the Bishops of Numidia also (because he had received letters from both Councils – that is, both of Carthage and Milevis) does it not speak clearly of infants?”

Again : he speaks of Celestius seeming to be Catholic “when he answered that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent, of blessed memory, by which all doubt about this matter was removed.” This last sentence alone is sufficient proof.

Oh there’s so much more, with references. :smiley:

Phil P


#13

[quote=adstrinity]That was a claim that a friend, a very good friend made to me last weekend. I finally asked him via e-mail what did he mean? The word, “Pope”? The “Donation of Constantine” allegation? I got the following e-mail.

"This is where I found out some of the information:

http://www.contenderministries.org/Catholicism/papalfallacy.php

http://www.contenderministries.org/Catholicism/papalfallacy1.php

I’m pretty sure that you’re going to scream, “BULLOCKS!” at it a whole bunch, but I would also like to see some evidence that there has always been a pope.

Let me recall back to the time that you said that you hated it when churches made little charts that claim they are the original church. Afterwards, you showed me a chart that claims that there has always been a pope. They are all the same charts to me. I know that the Church of Christ has made a chart, and I don’t believe that that particular chart is true. I do, however, believe that Orthodox Christianity has always been around. So if you can find me conclusive evidence (and not just scriptual evidence) that there has always been a pope, please show me. Oh, and if it can be evidence that is outside of your church, that would make it stronger, for many churches have tampered with their own history to make themselves look clean.

In Christ,

name

PS: For keeping an open mind and strength in researching read Acts 17:11."

To tell you the truth, I haven’t opened those links because I’m not sure of the fallacies I will find. Can all this be answered with letters from the Church Fathers? Help me out you guys. I don’t want to get upset over this.

ALSO, he IS a VERY good friend!! I do not feel he is anti-Catholic or anything. He DOES believe in truth & Jesus’ love & he attended a weekday Mass with me (commenting, “That’s just like my friend’s Luteran church” – :rolleyes: ) I say this because he is really not antagonistic so that is not the way to approach him. ALSO, should I point out that in Acts 17:11 the scriptures included the Deutero Canon as well?

Please help me & pray for this guy. I just don’t have the strength to open those threads alone. I KNOW the Papacy has been around for 2000 years!!!
[/quote]

I thought that was what Mormons said :slight_smile:

The Petrine ministry is a permanent element in the constitution of the Church, yes - but a Papacy as such, is not. The Papacy is a form which the Petrine ministry has taken - but the title papa was at first born by all major bishops: Cyprian of Carthage was so addressed, in the 250s. It was reserved to the bishop of Rome only relatively late - in the 11th century, I think. All Popes who are bishops of Rome have the title papa - but not all with the that title are bishops of Rome or Popes. (The Coptic Patriarch Shenouda III of Alexandria also has the title of Pope.)

It’s important to distinguish between the Petrine ministry as such, and the various forms it has taken through the history of the Church - we must not read back the universal authority of the successor of Peter into the long period in the Church’s history in which it was not universal, even in theory. We also need to distinguish between the different forms in which the Papacy has been manifested - the Papacy today has no armies, does not rule large parts of Italy, and is much more centralised than it was in (say) 1500 or even 1800. ##

I KNOW it has, BUT, can I show this to him? Also, where is it where a dispute was settled by the 4th pope instead of John on Patmos? Thank you!!!

That sounds like a reference to the letter of Clement of Rome:

earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html

justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/290.html ##


#14

I thank you all SO VERY MUCH for your replies!!!

I am going to send him catholic-convert.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=34 “Peter & the Primacy in the New Testament” as well as the articles you all have provided proving this point as well as articles from the catholic.com library. I don’t know how to phrase it (& I can’t even get on those links anymore), but, I’m not sure if he’ll read 9 or 10 cold links, but, that’s his problem, isn’t it? I have sufficient proof/evidence that this is FAR before 5 to 600s, with sources, no less. I thank you all for not only giving info, but, cutting this all off at the pass.

PLEASE PRAY FOR THIS MAN that he may come to accept the Truth of the Catholic Church & not stray!!! He will follow his intellect (as you can see by the Acts 17:11 comment), but, it’s just to show him that this isn’t made up will be hard (I know, if it’s going to happen, it’s going to be because of God). I mean, I WANT to tell him that the scriptures they read were also the 7 Luther ff tossed, but, I don’t want to be antagonistic towards him.

Thank you for these replies you guys & please pray for this situation.

God bless you & Mary keep you. :slight_smile: :smiley:


#15

The Pope is the successor of St. Peter. Peter was the first Pope, so it started around 32 AD. He was martyred at 67 AD to be succeeded by St. Linus who then died at 76 AD. Here’s the complete list of Pontifs: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm


#16

I thought it was foiunded in the 300’s by Constantine who merged the evil Roman State Religion with Christuianity. His Paganism ultimatley derived form Bbaylon and its queen, Semiaramis. Her son/Husband Nimrod and hse had a child so the Maddonna and CHild where their as well.

what, its all in “The Two Babylons” by Hislop! You can read it if you don’ft beleive me! And hey, tis good enough for Jack CHick to use, so good enough for me!


#17

[quote=ZAROVE]I thought it was foiunded in the 300’s by Constantine who merged the evil Roman State Religion with Christuianity. His Paganism ultimatley derived form Bbaylon and its queen, Semiaramis. Her son/Husband Nimrod and hse had a child so the Maddonna and CHild where their as well.

what, its all in “The Two Babylons” by Hislop! You can read it if you don’ft beleive me! And hey, tis good enough for Jack CHick to use, so good enough for me!
[/quote]

**Oh yeah that guy. He’s a well known anti-Catholic. Attacks from him would only increase my faith in the Catholic Church. :smiley: **


#18

[quote=ZAROVE]I thought it was foiunded in the 300’s by Constantine who merged the evil Roman State Religion with Christuianity. His Paganism ultimatley derived form Bbaylon and its queen, Semiaramis. Her son/Husband Nimrod and hse had a child so the Maddonna and CHild where their as well.

what, its all in “The Two Babylons” by Hislop! You can read it if you don’ft beleive me! And hey, tis good enough for Jack CHick to use, so good enough for me!
[/quote]

Hey!!! I noticed you claim “Church of Christ” as you’re religion. I think that’s what the guy who sent me this e-mail is. …It seems that your Church is pretty good concerning not buying into what people tell you & really looking for the truth…or maybe you & he just are exemplary spokespersons for the denomintation…


#19

“To be deep in history, is to cease to be protestant.”
-Cardinal John Henry Newman

To all these speculations, please read history. Arm yourself with truth not opinion as to what has happened in the last 2000 years.

in Christ.
A


#20

I was making a joke guys… this is why voice inflection is needed for the Internet…


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.