Where do we get the belife that we should have a Pope? Also what is our backing on it?

-- Christina Vilardi (sweety535@hotmail.com), February 20, 2003

Answers

The Baltimore Catechism says:

Q. 495. Who is the invisible Head of the Church? A. Jesus Christ is the invisible Head of the Church.

Q. 496. Who is the visible Head of the Church?

A. Our Holy Father the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible Head of the Church.

Q. 497. What does "vicar" mean?

A. Vicar is a name used in the Church to designate a person who acts in the name and authority of another. Thus a Vicar Apostolic is one who acts in the name of the Pope, and a Vicar General is one who acts in the name of the bishop.

Q. 498. Could any one be Pope without being Bishop of Rome?

A. One could not be Pope without being Bishop of Rome, and whoever is elected Pope must give up his title to any other diocese and take the title of Bishop of Rome.

Q. 499. Why is the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, the visible Head of the Church? A. The Pope, the Bishop of Rome, is the visible Head of the Church because he is the successor of St. Peter, whom Christ made the chief of the Apostles and the visible Head of the Church.

Also, I found this link, which may be helpful to you.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), February 20, 2003.

look at New Advent for the official reasons why he is leader. the supporting Scripture is mainly Mt16:16 but it is scant and ambiguous. New Advent and the "hardcore" users of this site will no doubt give you plenty of the technical arguments about the basis of the Pope's authority.

the reality of course is somewhat different. the establishment of the office was by and large political, inasmuch as the Bishop of Rome wanted to consolidate his claim that, as the successor of Peter (who it is believed died in Rome but he probably never headed the church there), he should be in charge of the whole Church. in fact, the first pope was Leo I (440 – 461 !!!!), or so most historians agree.

until then, there may have been regional "bishops" at the major cities, the most significant event being the institutionalisation of the church by the Roman Empire (381), and the friendly attitude of Emperor Constantine (who acted as head of the Roman church and contributed to Canon Law even though it is unclear whether he ever believed in Christ). the church in bed with a nasty Imperialist State? whatever it takes, baby.

throughout the early years, there was of course also the great conflict between the Western (Rome) church and the Eastern (Constantinople) church, the latter being geographically closer to where it all kicked off. the West and the East split (1054), which is very regrettable as to this day not that much stands between us apart from historical hatred.

i think the Papacy is important from an administration perspective: there are over 20,000 reformist churches, and they spring up all the time, whereas the “true church” has but two real strands – East and West. otherwise, i find it hard to get that bothered about the office of Pope. JPII is unquestionably a very good man -- but there have been some real shits in between, eg the Borgias and the Medicis. for long periods, the Church ran Europe (it has always been good at filling the power vacuum whenever sovereign states have fallen apart); and the papacy has at many times been a corrupt political, as opposed to religious, office. in the 14th century, we had 3 popes in place at one point. the Scriptural basis of his powers is pretty bloody vague by any reasonable standards, as you may discover.

JPII has inherited a lot of crap (eg infallibility or transsubstantiation: importance much over exaggerated, but still a load of old nonsense unless you look at it as I do as an administrative rules designed to stop schism) that he probably does not want to explicitly renounce as it would harm the church (and I agree with that) -- so theologians spend time justifying silly rules that were made centuries ago by quasi-pagans. as I see it, you can be RC and not believe in all the Papal "key to heaven" mumbo-jumbo. and if you think that this is heresy, bear in mind that i have just as much right to belong to the original church (the Western part) of Christ as Fr Karol Wytola (??) does.

not a word of this to your priest, however!

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 20, 2003.

Those are some pretty viscious anti-Catholic claims. They're patently untrue. Derek you simply can't believe the things you do and continue to call yourself a Catholic. I hope, at least out of respect for the Church (though which you seem to have some contempt for), that you aren't receiving Communion.

look at New Advent for the official reasons why he is leader. the supporting Scripture is mainly Mt16:16 but it is scant and ambiguous. New Advent and the "hardcore" users of this site will no doubt give you plenty of the technical arguments about the basis of the Pope's authority.

Technical, nothing. We have witness. http://www.catholicou tlook.com/pope.html: a pretty comprehensive list of information regarding the primacy of Peter, his Roman residency, and the understandings of the early Christian Fathers.

If Catholics have specific questions about this guy's claims, just go look them up on the Web or find a library or ask a theologian or Church historian or ANYTHING; anything would be better than taking this guy for his word. Yeesh, what a cynic.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), February 20, 2003.

i do not mean to cause offence. however, you must appreciate that history is everything. the scriptures are historical records preserved through the centuries just as my attempt at explaining the source of the Papal office is historical. you cannot be selective.

some points to consider:

a. the historical evidence is that Peter was leader of the Church in the immediate aftermath. but he was a CO-leader with James (Jesus' brother) and John. see GAlatians 2: 8 & 9. there was no single supreme leader at the outset.

b. there is no evidence that Peter ever headed the church in Rome. and as he was an uneducated Jew, it seems very unlikely that such evidence will ever be found.

c. it is odd that the Eastern church has no supreme leader equivalent to the Pope. as they werer closer to the time, and the church began in the East and only then moved West, do you not consider that odd? Did they secretly do away with the notion that Peter was the first in kine to an eternal office; or do you think that the office was invented in Rome? the answer lies in the history books.

I am RC just as much as you are. we may have different takes on the historical evolution of the church, and i respect and admire your viewpoint. unfortunately i just do not accept it. many other RC's, some far more knowledgeable than myself (eg Hans Kung) think along these lines. we are still RC and i, for one, always will be.

still disturbed by my views? then think about this one. why can't priests marry if all the Disciples were married? A rule invented (for good reason at the time) by a Pope. Nothing to do with what Jesus said. Why can't women be ordained? Ditto. If the RCC is always right, why the Counter Reformation? Why did so much change in VAtican II? would it have been sinful for a person to have advocated a change in VII the day before it was made by the Pope? Course not.

-- Derek Duval Jnr (Derek.Duval@virgin.net), February 20, 2003.

Derek writes:

"it is odd that the Eastern church has no supreme leader equivalent to the Pope. as they werer closer to the time, and the church began in the East and only then moved West, do you not consider that odd?"

There are Eastern Uniate Churchs that do look to the Pope as the Vicar of Christ.

Later, you write: "Why can't women be ordained?"

Following your logic, the fact that the Eastern Church doesn't allow female priests should settle this, shouldn't it?

Dear Derek, I don't know why you call yourself an "RC." Personally, I thought RC was a brand of Cola.

There are many Catholics here on this forum. You may want to stick around if you'd like to learn more about the Catholic Church.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 20, 2003.

you've just ignored most of what i have said, the most important point being that you should open your eyes to history. now i don't mind if you chose to ignore my message, but i do mind if you ignore it but still respond to a few of the ancilliary points (and inaccurately at that). you devalue my psoition as, incidentally, you devalue yr own position (which you should be able to defend).

i can respond to the few points you made but i see no point as you will only come back with more superificial toss.

just open yr eyes a little. it's not a sin to have a viewpoint.

-- Derek Duval Jnr (Derek.duval@virgin.net), February 20, 2003.

There is absolutly no evidence that Peter had any "co-leaders". Peter alone received the keys to the kingdom, the universal symbol of authority. In Gal 2:8-9 Paul merely acknowledges apostolic authority - the same authority that exists today in the bishops of the Church - by indicating that Peter, James, and John were apostles, while he and Barnabas were not. That does not suggest equal authority among all apostles. It merely says that apostles have authority that non-Apostles don't have. Further, if you read the writings of the early Church Fathers, especially the Apostolic Fathers, you find that they clearly look to Peter and his successors for authority - never to James, John, or anyone else.

Your statement that there is no evidence of Peter's episcopacy in Rome simply reveals your Protestant outlook. The Bible, while it clearly states that Peter worked in Rome, does not explicitly state that he was bishop of Rome. To a Protestant therefore, who expects to find everything in the Bible, there is no evidence. But the writings of the Fathers repeatedly make reference to Peter's presence, headship, work, and martyrdom in Rome.

The Eastern Rites of the Church Christ founded have the same supreme leader as the rest of that Church. The fact that another church which separated from the Church Christ founded has set up a different structure is irrelevant. They can set their church up any way they wish. Again, the early Fathers, Eastern and Western, all clearly followed the bishop of Rome - because they were all Catholic!

There is absolutely no evidence, either scriptural or historical, that "all the disciples were married" - or for that matter that any of them were. Furthermore, a great many Catholic priests are married - primarily in the Eastern Rites, but also some in the Latin Rite. However, whether or not the disciples were married is completely irrelevant to the marital state of priests today. In the final analysis, questions about the marital status of priests can be validly answered by the statement "because the Church says so". This is not a matter of doctrine. Does the Church not have the right to make rules regarding its own priests??

Women cannot be ordained because Jesus Himself taught that they cannot. His repeatedly choosing men for ordination is taken as a clear expression of His divine will, and as such is an article of the faith. The Pope has formally declared that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women, and the matter is thereby settled for all time.

You may be an RC, whatever that is, but you clearly are not Catholic. Luther's views were closer to orthodox Christian truth than yours are. Then again, I could hardly expect more from one who quotes a condemned heretic as a source.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 20, 2003.

Derek,

Your post is out in left field.

You've certainly got a unique point of view. It also happens to be wrong when you deny the doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church. Is that hard for you to understand?

As I already mentioned, you could learn a lot here about Catholics and the Catholic Church; but, only if your mind is open to learning.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 20, 2003.

What *I* found interesting was that you lumped "infallibility" and "transubstantiation" together, as though they're one and the same thing. But they're not. There are many Protestant Churches which don't recognize "infallibility" but do recognize "transubstantiation". A visit to dictionary.com might be helpful. ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 20, 2003.

It would appear no changes are to take place in this forum whenever someone " challenges " the history of the Church. Christ did tell us "Upon this rock I shall build my church " which to all scholars I feel meant Peter - The Fisherman of Men -.

Secondly as to marriage in priesthood up until the 1100's marriage was not a question until the offspring asked for their earthly inheritance being lands and material wealth.

At this point in time they the children that is were denounced as offspring of Popes/Cardinals/Bishops and priests/monks as they were said to be celebites.

One of the most infamous coverups in Church History were the writings of the Marquis De Sade who was imprisoned for his allegorical writings expousing the farce of the Church in Paris. His works never came to light until the early 1900's.

Is one to think Christ would give responsibilities to a group of young soft peach fuzzed boys rather then men who were married and experienced maturity. As to the women of time they were chattel with very few rights as experienced today in civilized societies.

The Medieval Mode of " governing " the people is over and the future lies ahead for Christ did and is freeing us from the law(s) made by men.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), February 20, 2003.

So only married men can be mature?? I could give you a list of single, high-ranking men in business, government, medicine, or just about any field you can name who would argue that point. Not to mention thousands of single priests, bishops, and popes who give every indication of being mature men. I could also pretty quickly put together a list of married men who give every indication of being emotional and intellectual juveniles, and probably always will be.

Jesus freed us from the "laws of men", that is the hundreds of manmade prescriptions of the Mosaic Law, a long time ago. Obviously He did not intend to free us from the authority of His own Church however. Otherwise there would have been no point in His conferring that authority. "He who hears you hears Me; he who rejects you rejects Me" still stands - and will until the end of time.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 20, 2003.

Jean,

You write:

"Is one to think Christ would give responsibilities to a group of young soft peach fuzzed boys rather then men who were married and experienced maturity."

The credibility of St. Paul and Our Lord could be the target of this statement. It's an ignorant stereotype. As Paul (the forumite, not the New Testament writer) writes, marriage does not make men mature. Just ask my wife!

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 20, 2003.

Paul, thanks for engaging on these issues.

you have yet to produce anything concrete that suggests that Jesus wanted us to have a Pope, nor anything that suggests that he would have the ultimate right to interpret our faith.

Mt 16:16 is hardly unequivocal

Gt 2: 7 et seq states that Peter had the mandate to convert the Jews (as he was one) and PAul the Gentiles. It also expressly recognises James Peter and John as the pillars of the old church. But there is nothing in Paul writing that, so far as i can discover, recognises Paul as the head of the church and Paul's boss. the reference is to the 3 pillars and Peter is neither named first or last.

Ac 1:20 would suggest that Jesus did consider the Apostles to hold office - the replacement of Judas. Now if Peter's office is held by the Pope, who are the other 11 office holders of today.

Ac 6 evidences the collective decision making of the 12 Apostles, not the decisions of PAul. I could go through the Scriptures an nauseum on this theme.

AT several points in the NT, Jesus is asked who is greatest (eg see Mt 18). now this is a very anti-hierarchial statement. moreover, if there was an infallible one amongst them at the time, would he not have been the greatest?

then you turn to history. there is no record of Peter being the Chief Bishop, let alone infallible. in fact the position of Pope is only formalised centuries later, as i described in my previous post. in the interim a Roman emperor uses the post to control the masses.

my tales about the very regrettable behaviour of many of our past popes, right upto the Jew-hater Pius XII, is not designed to demonstrate that there is a flaw in the succession. i am trying to explain why in the past self serving popes who were probably not even Christain invented the rules that they did. you must see the irony in the pope basing his appointment on some dubious theological conclusion and then giving himself infallibility so that the dubious becomes set in stone. a sort of catch 22 in reverse.

i am not sying that JEsus would have been anti- there being a leader. but i am saying that to argue that the PApacy follows directly from Gods will, as his will is evidenced in Scripture and history, is tenuous to say the least.

you can carry trying to denigrate me as a Protestant or whatever insult come to hand. i forgive you as i am bound by God.

i would also warn you that 500 years from now i will not be the "liberal" that you all find so offensive. we will have women priests, we will have infallibility renounded, we will have apologised to the Jews for our disgraceful behaviour in the face of the Holocaust, our priests will be happily married with kids, etc and our church will be a much better place for it.

over to you.

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 21, 2003.

So Christina, to answer yr question

Where do we get the belife that we should have a Pope? Answer: From the Pope

Also what is our backing on it? Answer: One ambiguous statement in the NT.

That's the honest answer. But i would stress it does not detract from the fact, that despite moral bankruptcy of some of our leaders, we have carried the Christian torch for 2000 years together with our brothers in the East, and we are blessed with a man among man, JPII, at this prsent time. The Church is a good place to be.

You don't have to believe all the gobble-de-gook to be a Catholic. Remember, to be Catholic, you have to be Christian first, which is what most of the people that hang around this web-site seem to forget. There are plenty amongst us, some influential, who will own up to the truth. Sadly, for the time being, the majority are happier to blindly follow whatever they were last told. But as i say, Tiochfaidh Ar La ("Our Day Will Come" in my native Irish). For a truly great Pope, look no further than John XXIII. sometimes, i suspect that the Church forgot to send a copy of VAtican II across the Atlantic.

Whatever you do, do it well.

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 21, 2003.

Where do we get the belief that we should have a Pope?

Answer: From the fact that Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, took it upon Himself to personally appoint and ordain the first Pope, conferring upon him full authority (the keys to the kingdom) and the power to teach infallibly (whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven).

Why do we need a Pope?

A: Check the scoreboard ... Church with Pope ... 2,000 years of constant and unchanging truth ... Modern Christian tradition which rejects the Pope ... 450 years of constant division, confusion, and fragmentation, resulting in more than 20,000 contradicting manmade sects, and doctrinal chaos. You cannot have truth without unity, and you cannot have unity without genuine authority. That's why we need the Pope standing in the divinely appointed position of Vicar of Christ, acting not by his own authority, but by that of Christ, delegated to him.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 21, 2003.

Also what is our backing on it? Answer: One ambiguous statement in the NT.

That's the honest answer.

Hogwash. That's your answer, not that of Holy Mother Church. Read the links provided above.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), February 21, 2003.

Paul, agree broadly with yr second answer. Re the first, why were the PApacy and after that PApal infallibility introduced 100's of years after Christ died. because they are man made rules. read the jistory of our church and this becomes obvious.

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 21, 2003.

Actually, I've never told anyone this, but I'm a nudist. I happen to disagree with mainstream nudism on a couple of minor issues - like that whole thing about not wearing clothes - but I'm still a nudist.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), February 21, 2003.

Dear Derek,

The Papacy, complete with its essential charisms, was "introduced" when Jesus said "upon this Rock I will build my Church" ... "I give unto you the keys to my kingdom". Our understanding of this essential doctrine of the Church, like our understanding of every doctrine, has evolved and expanded over time. Today we understand every doctrine Jesus gave to the Apostles far better than the Apostles themselves were able to. The doctrine of infallibility was not formally defined for several hundred years. That is what you are referring to. It is a typical Protestant error to equate the formal definition of a doctrine with "introduction" of that doctrine. One of the criteria for formal definition of a doctrine is historical continuity from Apostolic times. Therefore, when a doctrine is formally and infallibly defined by the Church, we know immediately that it has always been present in the Church. The headship of Peter, and his infallibility, are such doctrines. Peter didn't fully understand it - that's for sure. Most likely we don't fully understand it today either. But we learn more about our faith and the fullness of meaning of each doctrine with every generation. This is part of the promise Jesus made to the Church - "the Holy Spirit will guide you to all truth".

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 21, 2003.

Paul

touche! he was infallible, but he did not understand what Jesus said to him - nor did anyone lesein the general body of the church -- though we (and not Peter) the are supposed to undertand 2000 years, multiple translations od Scripture, etc etc after the fact, and this i swhat caused the East to go their own way? Oh, and it then took the wisdom of Leo I to enlighten us (and incidentally realise a few personal goals of his own)? this is as barmy as sola scriptura.

anyway, whatever our differences, thank you for responding to the points i have made. I appreciate your ability and willingness robustly to defend your faith - ON THE POINTS, AND WITHOUT RECOURSE TO MANTRA OR SILLY JOKES.

i have said just about everything that i think appropriate on this point and am happy to leave the last word to you (if you want, but do not for a minute think that i am conceding).

you should know that i mean no offence. we live in the aftermath of the great but unfinished Vatican II -- and i suspect that the thoughts of John XXIII were as repugnant then as the views of John's successors in the liberal part of the Catholic Church are now.

Pax Christi

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 21, 2003.

Since infallibility has nothing to do with understanding what someone says to you, I'm afraid I don't see your point. One thing and one thing alone could constitute a breach of infallibility - officially teaching a false doctrine as binding on the universal Church. NOTHING else a Pope does has ANY relevance to the question of infallibility.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 21, 2003.

Paul I know you hate compliments but I hope you keep answering threads its just amazing, really amazing I could read your writing all day long. Wow Thanks.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 22, 2003.

well said Kiwi

-- dEREK dUVAL jNR (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 22, 2003.

Derek, I wish I had read your answers on this thread before posting my own clumsy Q&A.

Although I am merely a heathen nonCatholic, I applaud you, your honesty, and your integrity.

And I was waiting for someone to mention Hans Kung. He's a real treasure, and more faithful to his church than they to him. I was, I admit, too lazy to go back to re-read his excellent (but lengthy) works to prepare for arguments on them.

And Pope John XXIII, who you praise, was indeed an honest, deep man ahead of his time -- or perhaps, fully in it.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 26, 2003.

Derek, It is apparent that when you do your research, you are obviously reading slanted or biased material. For instance, your insult on Pope Pius XII (Jew hater) has been refuted and discounted by many people (including this forum in the past). Here is one web site that debunks this slur: holocaust

I would like to suggest that whenever you read something negative or damaging to anything, please read the opposing views. Simply accepting one's viewpoint can lead to many errorneous beliefs.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), February 26, 2003.

YOU DONT HES A STPUID IDEA

-- Elle McPherson (PROTESTANT@GOODGOOD.COM), March 11, 2003.