I have just read the following and wondered about its veracity - your thoughts please -

'By 496 the Roman Church was in a precarious situation. During the course of the fifth century, its very existence had been severely threatened. Between 384 and 399 the bishop of Rome had already began to call himself the pope, but his official status was no greater than that of any other bishop, and quite different from that of the pope today. he was not, in any sense, the spiritual leader or supreme head of Christendom. He merely represented a single body of vested interests, one of many divurgent forms of Christianity - and one that was desperately fighting for survival against a multitude of conflicting schisms and theological points of view'.

My immediate thoughts were -

1) I thought the catholics traced the pope all the way to Peter. 2) How does this affect Papal infallibility.

Any thoughts on my thoughts and the passage gratefully recieved!

Thanks.

-- Sharon (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), July 07, 2004

Answers

The tracing of apostolic succession is back to Peter.

Almost immediately, the different churches began to have differences of opinion. In human terms, it took quite a while for Rome to come to the forefront in trying to lessen schisms and centralize the theology.

IMO, it doesn't have any bearing on papal infallibility. There had to emerge, from the chaotic times, a central voice to help organize the early churches. Politically, this had to be the Bishop of Rome.

Peter and Paul were lead to Rome. Their deaths there had the effect that Rome became not only the political center but the theological center. But, as we all know, humans delay the will of God many times.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), July 07, 2004.

To get a good picture of what early Christians (and especially what early bishops) thought of the Bishop of Rome, you should read St Irenaus' letters. In his magisterial "Contra Heresies" he writes (around 150AD) about his having learned the faith from St Polycarp who learned the faith from St John the Apostle. Irenaus was a Greek, but was bishop of the sea port of Lyons, in southern Gaul (now France).

Now, in his writings, he mentions the special place that the see of Peter (Rome) had among all other Churches, including the big cities and sees of Alexandria (Egypt) Jerusalem, and Antioch. (Constantinople wasn't a thriving metropolis yet).

Now, if a Christian Bishop working in a bustling sea port like Lyons in 150AD, during the height of the Roman Empire, during the great Gnostic heresy on the one hand and the persecutions on the other, held that the Church was "Catholic" and that orthodoxy was found by following whatever the Bishop of the see of Rome said, since he was following Peter and had his charism of leadership.... I think that most anyone would have to conclude that the special place of Rome was an early and settled thing - hundreds of years before Constantine and the Council of Nicea.

Peace

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 07, 2004.

It doesn't affect Papal infallibility at all, since it is sheer nonsense. The writings of the early Church Fathers are absolutely full of references to both the primacy of Peter over the other Apostles and over the Church, and the subsequent primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Of course, someone who has never read anything but the Bible wouldn't be aware of such revealing historical documents. Indeed, avoiding historical facts is essential to the Protestant position, especially such fundamentalist positions as that of the writer of the above paragraph. To know history is to reject Protestantism.

The Catholic Church obviously was not and is not "one of many divurgent [sic] forms of Christianity". "Divergent" means "going in different directions from a common point". The Catholic Church is the original Christian Church, and the only Christian Church Christ ever intended to exist. It IS the common point from which all others diverged.

Incidentally, the Bishop of Rome did not "begin to call himself pope". The title 'Pope" originated at the grassroots level, long before the Church officially adopted it. The people of God referred to the Bishop of Rome as "papa", a term which both expressed their affection for the successor of Peter, and acknowledged his authority over them. "Pope" was eventually derived from "papa".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 07, 2004.

I made the following observation on another site but as it did not generate an answer I thought I would try again here.

Peter is mentioned quite often by the catholic church in defence of their line of authority, but another apostle whom the Lord referred to as His Beloved, none other than [John the Revelator], was still around after Peter's death.

Surely if the authority was to be passed on then [John] would be the next in line and not some obscure other person. After all none other than [Christ] himself [chose] John.

Why would some one other than an Apostle of the Lord be chosen to succeed Peter?

Vernon7

-- Vernon L Morgan (vernon7@clear.net.nz), July 08, 2004.

Vernon, several reasons.

1. At the time Peter was crucified, John was imprisoned in solitary confinement on the tiny island of Patmos in the Aegean Sea (where he received the visions which inspired his Apocalypse). He was in no position to lead a small, widespread, oppressed and necessarily underground community.

2. Jesus chose John as an apostle, i.e. a bishop, not as a pope. He appointed Peter the leader of the Apostles, i.e. pope. If he had wanted to appoint one of the other apostles as “second in charge with right of succession”, surely he would have done so in his lifetime on earth. But he did not. By the time of Peter’s death the Apostles had ordained dozens of other bishops.

3. The second pope is not “obscure”. His name is St Linus.

4. All of the disciples were “beloved” by Jesus. “The disciple whom Jesus loved” is merely a literary device which John uses in his Gospel to avoid mentioning his own name; presumably out of modesty.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 08, 2004.

QUOTE'It doesn't affect Papal infallibility at all, since it is sheer nonsense. The writings of the early Church Fathers are absolutely full of references to both the primacy of Peter over the other Apostles and over the Church, and the subsequent primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Of course, someone who has never read anything but the Bible wouldn't be aware of such revealing historical documents. Indeed, avoiding historical facts is essential to the Protestant position, especially such fundamentalist positions as that of the writer of the above paragraph. To know history is to reject Protestantism./ENDQUOTE

Paul are yo attacking the writers of the paragraph or me? I do read more than just my Bible. Part of my purpose here is to LEARN Church History. It would be really easy to go off and my any old book on Church history but how do I know if its fom a Catholic perspective or not. I am not a atholic so do not have the knowledge of Catholicism that people here do. Thats why I ask my questions here!!! Any answers that I am given I check out with a google search. I have found the Catholic Encyclopeadia but don't always grasp what they are getting at - here people (usually) make sense. Please don't have a go at me for wanting to learn.

-- haron (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), July 08, 2004.

Steve, I read what you say but not a word from the scriptures and you would have me believe you

God seems to have had a lot to say to John doesn't he, and one of the books is called Revelation, similar wouldn't you think to the rock Christ was to build his Church on.

Continuing revelation.

God speaking to man through His chosen Apostles and Prophets.

Why is this so hard to accept. It is the way it has been done since Adam, and God says He is the same always

Hebrews 13:Verse 8 8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

May be I have an added advantage when communicating with Deity . The belief that God [hears] and [answers] prayers, even from a mere mortal as I.

The only encouragement I can give is , as God listens to and answers me then anyone would have the same opportunity.

Revelation is alive and well. Try it.

And this might be useful.

John 1:Verse 6 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was [John].

Vernon7

-- Vernon L Morgan (vernon7@clear.net.nz), July 08, 2004.

Vernon,

Please don't hijack this thread. I sincerely want to know these things without animosity. You have no respect for any one else's opinions and you give all us non - Catholics a bad name. Please don't disrespect people here. If you have an opinion - give it respectfully!

-- Sharon (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), July 08, 2004.

"Steve, I read what you say but not a word from the scriptures and you would have me believe you”

Yes that’s because this happened in 64 AD, and the gospels hadn’t even been written yet! The Church produced the Bible, not vice versa. St Paul was martyred the same day as St Peter, so you won't find it in his letters. And the Acts of the Apostles leaves off its narrative when St Paul arrives in Rome. Do you think the history of the Church ends there because the rest of the story is not in scripture? St John refers to his imprisonment on Patmos in Apoc 1:9.

If you think “continuing revelation” continues forever because “God says He is the same always” , explain why you (I assume) reject the revelations claimed by the Mormons, Moonies etc. Why are God's revelations to them wrong but His "revelations" to you are true? God does not relate to us in the same way throughout history. He first spoke through the patriarchs and prophets. Then in the person of Christ. Christ told us after He was gone He would send the Holy Spirit to guide his Church. (You look up the Bible reference, I think knowing the content is more important than being able to quote chapter and verse.) The Holy Spirit speaks through the Apostles and their successors. Try listening to it instead of your own fanciful imaginings.

For someone who reads his Bible so much, I’m amazed you fail to realize that John 1:6 refers to St JOHN THE BAPTIST, not St John the Apostle. Or maybe you don’t actually read it. If you did you would have known about the Holy Spirit.

Next time you pray, ask God for the gifts of humility and charity.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 08, 2004.

sharon, please dont be so sensitive, as long as you are respectful here, no one is going to "attack" you.

paul m, i believe, was referring to the paragraph you posted in your question, not to your question in general. basically, as stated, the idea that the bishop of rome wasnt in charge of the early church is hogwash, as we can easily read about it in the writings of early church fathers. that is the answer to your question, which Paul M delivered.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), July 08, 2004.

Oh and Vernon, St John the Apostle and Evangelist (NOT “the Revelator”; the Apocalypse is his record of the revelation TO him, not any revelation BY him) lived until about 95 AD. By that time he had been passed over four times when choosing a new Pope. There is no record of him ever making any objection to this. I believe several of the other Apostles were also still alive when St Peter died but they didn’t demand to be Pope either. If it was good enough for the Apostles to accept this situation, who are you to complain about it 2000 years later?

It is said that when he was very old, St John was so feeble that he was carried into church each Sunday and his sermons consisted only of the words “My children, love one another!” before he became exhausted. Let’s take his advice.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 08, 2004.

Hi Sharon,

Did you know you can read the actual writings of the disciples OF the disciples ON-LINE? That is a great place to start reading Church history from the ancestors of our faith themselves rather than reading what someone else's rendition of history is. For instance, you can read the writings of Ignatius (a disciple of St. John), Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Augustine, etc., etc.

Here's the cite. http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

Note that the compilations are in date order, so you can start with the oldest first, and read the writings of pastors and bishops who almost ALWAYS faced martyrdom. The writings are humbling, heart- wrenching and EXTRAORDINARY.

Next, you could get a copy of Triumph of the Catholic Church by H. Crocker, which is a very accurate description of Church history . . . the good, the bad and ugly is what you will find. But ultimately you will see how the Lord secured His Church in spite of the evil influences from within, how orphanages, schools, hospitals flourished throughout the darkest of ages.

God Bless you in your search for the truth,

Gail (Evangelical convert to Catholocism)

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 09, 2004.

Thank you Gail, I will look at and bookmark the site you mentioned. i may have more questions later!.....

-- Sharon (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), July 10, 2004.

Great Sharon! Feel free to e-mail me privately if you wish!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 10, 2004.