Serious Question: Why and What is the Pope?

[HIC SVNT LEONES]

I know he (and I guess in the past sometimes she) is the head of the catholic church. But why? What is the Pope?

[Wolfgang von Zweibrücken]

The Pope was initially the Bishop of Rome, a post which held influence beyond that of any other bishop mostly due to the City's influence. His power evolved from there over the ages. In the more abstract, philosophical sense, it is thought that Christ annointed Peter the first Pope, and in so doing set up the entire catholic system. In my humble opinion, I must dissent from this view, but then as a Protestant, I would.

The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, thought of as the representative of God on the earth, infallible due to his privileged position. He is elected by the college of Cardinals. He has the power of excommunication, etc. etc.
The Pope and modern Church largely have their roots in the counter-reformation, when much of modern catholic practice was sorted and standardized (the confession box, for instance, was invented in the 1500s, as were the various confessions of faith). Before then it was a somewhat more diverse and decentralized faith. Before the 1200s, which I believe was when Cellibacy was introduced, the catholic church was even more different than it's modern incarnation.

You could probably learn most of this stuff from Wikipedia.

[HIC SVNT LEONES]

I actually learned most of that stuff in AP European history when I was still in High School. I just never knew 'why' or 'what' made the Pope that way. lol.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Why? Because Charlemagne needed an excuse to be Emperor of Romans and because of the Frankish politics that evolved in Europe over the next several hundred years.

[blackwatersix]

Why? Because Charlemagne needed an excuse to be Emperor of Romans and because of the Frankish politics that evolved in Europe over the next several hundred years.

I think the OP was asking the doctrinal reason of being of the Pope, not the socio-political-cultural reason. Anyway I think it's best if a Catholic answered the question, don't you think?

When Jesus Christ instituted the 12 Apostles as the leaders of His Church, he placed Peter at its head, in a collegial fashion. (Hence why we still have the College of Cardinals.) Jesus made Peter the "rock" on which His Church would be founded upon, giving him the keys of His Church, making him the shepherd of His flock, as well as the office of binding and loosing. This pastoral office of Peter is now exercised by the bishops with the Pope, Peter's successor, at its head.

Thus, the Pope, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."

In short, when Jesus ascended into heaven, He left his pastoral duties to his apostles, with Peter at its' head. These apostles passed their duties down through the generations through the bishops and cardinals of the Church, with the Pope, the successor of Peter, at its head.

sources: Cathechism of the Catholic Church, 880-886. Lumen Gentium, 22.

[motiv-8]

Why? Because Charlemagne needed an excuse to be Emperor of Romans and because of the Frankish politics that evolved in Europe over the next several hundred years.

Why? Because the Pope became embittered at the lethargy and haplessness of the powers in Constantinople. Constantine V in particular takes the lion's share of the responsibility.

We can always count on you to show only one side of a coin. On top of that, one must always take care to separate the theological evolution of the Papacy and the political evolution of the Papal States. They were frequently, not always, entwined, and one process began long before another.

[Mythos]

Why? Because the Pope became embittered at the lethargy and haplessness of the powers in Constantinople. Constantine V in particular takes the lion's share of the responsibility.

We can always count on you to show only one side of a coin. On top of that, one must always take care to separate the theological evolution of the Papacy and the political evolution of the Papal States. They were frequently, not always, entwined, and one process began long before another.

In Byzantium's defence, at any point in history it had its hands quite full.

[motiv-8]

In Byzantium's defence, at any point in history it had its hands quite full.

While this is true, it is not actually relevant to the case I am speaking of re: Constantine V

[Carpathian Wolf]

Why? Because the Pope became embittered at the lethargy and haplessness of the powers in Constantinople. Constantine V in particular takes the lion's share of the responsibility.

We can always count on you to show only one side of a coin. On top of that, one must always take care to separate the theological evolution of the Papacy and the political evolution of the Papal States. They were frequently, not always, entwined, and one process began long before another.

Which pope?

Haplessness in what?

Do share mr Byzantologist.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Why? Because the Pope became embittered at the lethargy and haplessness of the powers in Constantinople. Constantine V in particular takes the lion's share of the responsibility.

We can always count on you to show only one side of a coin. On top of that, one must always take care to separate the theological evolution of the Papacy and the political evolution of the Papal States. They were frequently, not always, entwined, and one process began long before another.

But they're not so easy to separate, especially since medieval Popes used theology to justify their politics. For example, the whole concept of the spiritual and temporal swords.

And from the Byzantine perspective the Bishop of Rome had no business crowning anyone anything, let alone the Emperor!

The Roman Bishop's claim to supremacy is pretty dubious, based as it is on practically a single verse in the Bible, interpreted a particular way.

[Manco]

infallible due to his privileged position

It's been ages since i had any catechism lessons, but IIRC the pope's only infallible under specific circumstances and when it is expressly stated.

[blackwatersix]

It's been ages since i had any catechism lessons, but IIRC the pope's only infallible under specific circumstances and when it is expressly stated.

yep. iirc the Pope is infallible only in matters of the faith, (teachings and doctrine) with the College of Cardinals and bishops. It doesn't extend to the Pope's personal political and social views.

[basics]

" Jesus made Peter the "rock" on which His Church would be founded upon, giving him the keys of His Church, making him the shepherd of His flock, as well as the office of binding and loosing. "

blackwatersix,

When Peter replied that he and they thought Him to be the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus replied that only the Father could have given them that insight. He said,

" Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

So, did Jesus mean Peter personally to be the rock of the church or something else. We know that Peter never was leader in Jerusalem, we also know that Peter was appointed by that faction to be the Apostle to the Jews. So the question remains was the wording said by Jesus a personal thing for Peter only or was it something else?

Jesus said " upon this rock I will build my church " but if this rock was for Peter alone the church wouldn't have got very far remembering that it was the council at Jerusalem that restricted him to the Jews whilst giving Paul free reign over the Gentiles. Strangely it was the latter who laid out the whole guidlines for the church claiming that what he got was directly from the Lord Jesus Christ.

" And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

So, Jesus is telling the disciples that they will have power to bind and loose on earth so what is the connection between what He said just before and what He means now? Is it Peter or something much more important? For that we have to consider the word rock. In all Scripture, and I mean the Scripture that they had then, rock was always in referal to God. He is the Rock.

And when we get into the New Scriptures we discover that it is the Gospel that is the power of God to save. So is that power Peter? No, it is what Peter said in reply to Jesus' question of who do you think I am? That is the Gospel which has the power of God behind it and it is this Gospel that saves which Peter and the others were to be given as keys.

These disciples were to carry that Gospel, the story of the man who was actually the Son of the living God, and of whom the peoples of Israel had just killed, actually was Messias of whom the Baptist spoke and of whom they, that people, had awaited for so long. That was the rock of which Jesus Christ spoke. And while Peter and the others were bogged down caring for the new believers, others were passing on the very message as they returned to their homelands after Pentecost.

So they asked that the gathering at Jerusalem pray for selected men to be bishops, to do what they had been doing, so that they could get out into the field to preach the very thing that they were commanded to do. And so it was that six men were chosen to be the first bishops in and around the Holy land. Funnily enough their leader was not Peter, rather James the brother of our Lord, whom all the others accepted as such.

As for Peter there is no doubt that that man did many wonderful things in the cause of the Gospel and let no-one say otherwise. But as for being the one on whom the whole church depends is something that only Roman Catholicism can answer as Scripture tells quite a different story. Was he ever in Rome? Only tradition tells us so. Was he the first bishop of Rome? Since Paul and his compatriots set up the role of caring in each place they went it is probable that even if Peter did reach Rome there already would have been a bishop in place.

[Helm]

He's pretty much a remnant of the Christianised Roman Empire, the Pope being the head of the Roman church.

[Poach]

This has been an interesting read for me, I never knew why the position of Pope existed either. Now I do.

Thanks Wolfgang and Blackwater!

[Reidy]

The Pope is symbollic of all that is corrupt with the concept of 'organised religion'.

[blackwatersix]

@ Basics:

At this point I can see that a debate with you would lead nowhere as we have different interpretations of the Bible, interpretations that can be described as irreconcilable. I would not be so arrogant as to say which of us is correct, I believe that's up to God to decide when we meet Him. My reason for replying in this thread is to answer the OP's question of why the Pope came to be regarded as the Vicar of Christ and what his function is; not to be drawn into scriptural debate, for my faith is much more than recorded words of men inspired by God.

The Church does not rely on Peter, or his successors the Popes, to exist. That's completely misunderstanding Catholic doctrine. Christ's role as priest, prophet, and king to His flock are delegated to the Apostles and their successors, the Bishops and the College of Cardinals; who because of His promise to never leave His Church are infallible in matters of the faith. The basis for giving Peter, and thus, his successors, the primacy of position is because of Christ's words designating him (Peter) specifically to be the foundation upon which the Church would be built upon, and the said giving of the keys of heaven, and the office of loosing and binding.

[basics]

" Christ's role as priest, prophet, and king to His flock are delegated to the Apostles and their successors, the Bishops and the College of Cardinals; who because of His promise to never leave His Church are infallible in matters of the faith. The basis for giving Peter, and thus, his successors."

blackwatersix,

And that is exactly the problem. Bishops and Cardinals were never meant to rule the church. In fact there never was a colloge of Cardinals in all Scripture and as for bishops what you now see was not the purpose for which they came about. They are certainly not the successors of any of the disciples just as Peter was not the leader of the church after Pentecost.

So where a Pope comes in is a serious question. He takes the name Holy Father in spite of Jesus requiring us that we call no man father except our Father which is in heaven. It is sleight of hand to put in things that are not there and the biggest sleight of all is that millions of Roman Catholics never question these things, relying on father so and so to tell them all they need to know.

[blackwatersix]

And that is exactly the problem. Bishops and Cardinals were never meant to rule the church. In fact there never was a colloge of Cardinals in all Scripture and as for bishops what you now see was not the purpose for which they came about. They are certainly not the successors of any of the disciples just as Peter was not the leader of the church after Pentecost.

So where a Pope comes in is a serious question. He takes the name Holy Father in spite of Jesus requiring us that we call no man father except our Father which is in heaven. It is sleight of hand to put in things that are not there and the biggest sleight of all is that millions of Roman Catholics never question these things, relying on father so and so to tell them all they need to know.

I would just like to point out that not all Catholics "never" question these things, millions do, which is why the doctrine of the Catholic Church is available in the internet and in print form. We have one faith, the faith of the Church. I am not here to argue against sola scriptura because in my opinion that would be an argument with no resolution, entrenched as we both are in our respective doctrines.

And that is exactly our fundamental difference, which I addressed at the start of my reply to you. We do not limit ourselves to the Scripture alone, because the divinely-inspired words of men nearly two thousand years ago, because they were meant for their day and age, not the 21st century.

The Pope is the successor of Peter as the shepherd of His flock, keeper of the keys, and office of binding and loosing. He comes in because of the need for guidance, servants, and leaders of Christ's flock, a duty solemnized when Christ gave Peter these responsibilities.

That being said, the very same Scriptures we are basing our faith on was compiled by the early Christians, the Bishops and the College of Cardinals of the time, the successors of the Apostles: the men who convened in Councils who were infallible in matters of the Faith due to Christ's promise to guide His Church by sending the Holy Spirit.

Simply put: to question the authority and infallibility of these men as being successors to the apostles would question the validity of the Scriptures which you base your faith on.

[Stavroforos]

The Pope is the first amongst equals, and the symbolic head of the Church, despite the Church currently being divided amongst Catholics and Orthodox.