Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: (sort of) Re: Names of Popes Message-ID: Date: 21 Aug 90 03:09:39 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Harvey Mudd College Lines: 52 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , vm0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent Paul Mulhern) writes... > Can anyone explain who the second 'pope' was? I'm curious about how >the line was started. St. Linus, 67-76 >In the very-early church, was there a 'final >authority' on earth? Was Peter such an authority (in HIS time, was >there any claim by or about him indicating this?) How was this >authority transferred (theoretically assuming it existed). Afraid I don't know too much about this other than the papacy was and is associated with the Bishopric of Rome. One of these days I'll have to read a good history of the early church (any sugggestions). >Paul rebuked >Peter for poor teaching and hipocrisy; I guess this bothers me >concerning someone who was the start of a line of leaders who can decide >something's infallible. Yeah, God's funny that way, he has a knack for picking people who seem totally unsuited for the job he chooses for them (Moses and Jonah are two who come to mind at the moment). I don't know that passage that you're referring to about Paul rebuking Peter (I'm afraid I haven't read as much of the Pauline letters as I should have), so I can't address the issue of "poor teaching". As for the hypocrisy bit, well, it is important to realize that infallibility does not mean perfection. It means simply that the infallible person(s) or thing cannot pronounce wrong doctrine. In the case of a Pope, infallibility applies *only* to definitions of doctrine made _ex cathedra_. These are actually fairly few and are made only after much prayer and consultation with the theological scholarship which has come before. This is not new doctrine, per se, but the clearer definition of previous definition. No dogma is defined which is contrary to the theological teachings of the Bible. (as an aside, a few items which are not dogma include the teachings on contraception, and weekly attendence at church, although being teachings of the church, it is better that Christians believe these piously). -dh --- Don Hosek TeX, LaTeX, and Metafont support, consulting dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu installation and production work. dhosek@ymir.bitnet Free Estimates. uunet!jarthur!ymir Phone: 714-625-0147 finger dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu for more info