The Protestant's Dilemma Read Online Free

Christ built. 5 The pope presided over or sent his legates to ecumenical councils and confirmed (or refused confirmation) of their decisions, and members of the Church accepted these decrees as binding.
    But what is the evidence that Peter was in Rome and established a church there? First, while the Bible does not explicitly say “Peter was the bishop of Rome,” in Peter’s first epistle he ends by saying, “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13). We know from its usage in the book of Revelation that Babylon was a code word for Rome. Peter chose to be subtle here, since the Christians were being persecuted in Rome, and he, its leader, had to be careful. While this does not prove Peter was in Rome, it is biblical evidence for the claim.
    Several early Christians testify to the existence of the bishop of Rome, from Peter onward. In the 100s, Irenaeus spoke of the church in Rome founded by the apostles Peter and Paul and went on to describe the succession of bishops from there:
     
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. 6
     
    The Clement mentioned at the end of this passage is the author of a first-century letter to the church in Corinth. Clement begins the letter by stating that he writes from the church in Rome, strengthening the claim that this line of bishops dwelled in Rome and was begun by Peter. Ignatius of Antioch, Tertullian, Eusebius, Jerome, and John Chrysostom, among others, testify to the historical reality of Peter’s sojourn and martyrdom in Rome. An unbiased examination of the historical evidence, coupled with Peter’s words in his first epistle, make an overwhelming case for the first bishop of Rome being Peter and the line continuing in unbroken succession.
    But what about Scripture being a touchstone to the apostles? A Catholic can happily agree that it is indeed that. But that does not mean that Scripture is the sole touchstone to the apostles. St. Paul tells us in his letter to the church in Ephesus that God built his Church on human beings:
     
So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone. 7
     
    Christ is the ultimate foundation, and he chose the apostles as the foundational layer for the Church. These are men and therefore, it is true, open to corruption. But God by his power protected these men from error in their teachings, which even Protestants believe—for they accept the scriptures written by these men.
    God provided us multiple touchstones to Christ: the apostles and their successors (the magisterium), the Apostolic Tradition, and Sacred Scripture.
     
    THE PROTESTANT’S DILEMMA
    If Protestantism is true, then after 1,500 years of having a bishop of Rome called the prince of the apostles, the successor of Peter to whom Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 16:19), God eradicated the office of the papacy. No longer would his Church have a leader, a “servant of the servants of God.” 8 Instead, God left his Church to follow whatever leaders declared themselves to be so in whatever churches they founded on the basis of their own authority or personal revelations.

3: ECUMENICAL COUNCILS
     
     
     
     
    IF PROTESTANTISM IS TRUE,
    Ecumenical councils somehow no longer have the authority they used to have.
     
    For the first several centuries of the Church’s existence, bishops gathered in councils to define true doctrines and condemn heresies, issuing decrees that were recognized as binding upon all the faithful. But at a certain point in history, these