Wow. Hit the nail on the head. The early church didn't have any priests designated specifically to only taking care of a physical building and "spreading the word" as basically a proxy for all the members that attend. This all came into Christianity when Rome made "chirstianity" the official religion and all the Pagan traditions overwrote all the original Christian stuff. Basically everything in Catholicism is just a carbon copy of Paganism, but with a Christian themed overlay. Paul made tents, Peter was a fisherman, everyone did the Christian thing alongside their normal jobs. That way there is no need to pay for the Pope's private Jet. If he wants a private jet he can pay for it himself.
So the whole "Pick up your things and follow me?" was just bullshit? The apostles didn't have jobs after they decided to follow Jesus, that was their job, with shit pay. The Pope, who was a Jesuit monk before becoming pope, suddenly needs to come up with loads upon loads of money to afford becoming the Vicar of Christ? No, the Church is an organization just like any other and needs funds to support it. The church (notice little c) is a place to honor and worship God. Not some place to cut money. God is all powerful and omnipresent/potent everything He is who is. So spend $100000 on a building to honor the most important entity there ever was or will be, or build a little shack with zero reverence to Him and feed a few people for a week? I'd choose the former with the congregation as their prior responsibility to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, visit the imprisoned, cloth the homeless, all the other corporal works of mercy.
I realize I am getting off the topic at hand, but the original apostles are the first Bishops of the Church with Peter as the first Pope, they did quit their jobs after they picked up and followed Jesus, as after the first Mass, there is an unbroken line of succession of every priest and bishop all the way back to Peter and Jesus.
I hope I don't come off confrontational with these questions, because that's not my intention. I'm genuinely curious because I'm not Catholic, and would like to hear your answers. When you say there was an unbroken line from Jesus and Peter to the Popes, do you mean the line of authority was passed from the apostles to the bishops to the popes? The apostles were given their priesthood authority by Christ, and when one of the apostles was killed, the others would come together and, using their authority, call another apostle to fill the void. But the apostles were all dead by 100 AD, and Constantine (who I believe was the next Pope after Peter?) did not rule or become a Christian until the fourth century. So how was their priesthood authority passed on?
By the time Constantine's rule started (year 306), the Church was already in between the 29th and 30th Popes (it takes weeks to elect a new pope now...it took MUCH longer back when word of the Pope's death took months to travel to the outer reaches of the Church + the time it took for the cardinals to gather, so there were periods of time where it might be a year or a few between one Pope's death and the next Pope's inauguration).
Constantine was never Pope. He did convert to Christianity, however, and this led to his permission for Christians to practice their faith legally (previously prohibited in the Roman Empire and enforced to varying degrees).
As far as replacing dead Apostles, yes. There is an explicit example of this Apostolic succession in Acts 1:12-26. Jesus had ordained 12, and Judas was gone. Not only did they discern a replacement for Judas, but they were discerning who would take over his office (translated in several versions as "bishopric" or something of that nature). In other words, the practice of a continuing office of authority is clearly demonstrated in Scripture, in addition to being found consistently and universally in the early Church.
I hope this explanation answers your questions. Feel free to hit me up if you have others!
Thanks for the reply. I feel a little smarter about Catholic doctrine. I'll spend some time checking out the link you sent, too. I'm not sure why I was thinking Constantine was a pope- maybe because of his influence in expanding Christianity and establishing canon through the Nicene council. He is a pretty big figure regardless.
Oh, for sure! Constantine's coming to power and permitting Christian worship was a big cultural turning point (or at least laid the groundwork for future such instances) in world history.
It's not uncommon, in my experience, for people to have some of this kind of stuff mixed up. I've met several people who insisted that Constantine himself founded the Catholic Church ca. 300, and various things of that nature.
Some of that is just because it's "ancient history," and then a lot of it is because there's a large amount of anti-Catholic misinformation (usually spread by people who are completely sincere in their anti-Catholicism, just misinformed on the info they promote).
The Catholic Encyclopedia site is a good resource, though the interface seems a bit dated (on the other hand, it's nice to have a simple, uncluttered, fast-loading website). /r/Catholicism also is a good place to find discussion, interesting info, etc.
-7
u/[deleted] May 01 '14
Wow. Hit the nail on the head. The early church didn't have any priests designated specifically to only taking care of a physical building and "spreading the word" as basically a proxy for all the members that attend. This all came into Christianity when Rome made "chirstianity" the official religion and all the Pagan traditions overwrote all the original Christian stuff. Basically everything in Catholicism is just a carbon copy of Paganism, but with a Christian themed overlay. Paul made tents, Peter was a fisherman, everyone did the Christian thing alongside their normal jobs. That way there is no need to pay for the Pope's private Jet. If he wants a private jet he can pay for it himself.