Facts About Pope Peter I

DArceri · #11 6th June 2009, 11:01 PM

Gal 1:7....there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Paul explained himself pretty clearly, THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST PREACHED BY THE APOSTLES is the way of salvation. It is the 'plumbline' to testing the spirits. Any man, including the Pope, who add burdens to the Gospel message will be held accountable on the day of judgement.

Rhamiel · #12 6th June 2009, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by DArceri

Gal 1:7....there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Paul explained himself pretty clearly, THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST PREACHED BY THE APOSTLES is the way of salvation. It is the 'plumbline' to testing the spirits. Any man, including the Pope, who add burdens to the Gospel message will be held accountable on the day of judgement.

true, adding to the gospel is horrible, what is your point, also this thread is for facts about Peter

Albion · #13 6th June 2009, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by Trento

If you study some Roman history you will find in Leon I, Vol XI, col 637 that Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III write about "the primacy of the Apostolic See made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops"

You must have read his post too quickly. It was about Peter in Peter's own time. What various people theorized hundreds of years later after the Papacy had been invented of course tell us nothing about Peter's time, just about what the legends concerning Peter had become by the time these men wrote.

DArceri · #14 6th June 2009, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by Rhamiel

true, adding to the gospel is horrible, what is your point, also this thread is for facts about Peter

Lets cut to the chase... Pope (from Latin: "papa" or "father" from Greek πάπας, pápas, "papa.)

When did Peter ever reguard himself as Father? Or for that matter, the Vicar of Christ, or the Pontifex Maximus,....? We know what the RCC purpose was for these titles....Now lets talk about adding to scripture.

Albion · #15 6th June 2009, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by Rhamiel

he did not see himself as a bishop of Rome? how odd

This thread is for facts about Peter...as Pope.

Did you read my post carefully? I said nothing about Peter being a bishop of Rome. Do you need to read what the OP said again? It also was not concerned with Peter as bishop of Rome.

Both addressed the issue of whether he was a Pope, meaning having the position, authority, and jurisdiction that is claimed for the head of the Roman Catholic Church. No, Peter had no notion of anything like that, nor did anyone else, even though he is generally conceded (and I agree) to have been the bishop of Rome.

Albion · #16 6th June 2009, 11:27 PM

Just a minute. There is nothing special about the bishop of Rome being CALLED "Pope." It derives from the word Father, yes, and there are plenty of other church leaders called "Pope" or something else akin to Father.

The issue is whether one has the authority and powers that Catholics say go with being the head of their church. Acting coy about that as though to be Pope means nothing more than to be Fatherly or called by that title is absurd and, I think, purposely distracting.

Rhamiel · #17 7th June 2009, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by Albion

This thread is for facts about Peter...as Pope.

Did you read my post carefully? I said nothing about Peter being a bishop of Rome. Do you need to read what the OP said again? It also was not concerned with Peter as bishop of Rome.

Both addressed the issue of whether he was a Pope, meaning having the position, authority, and jurisdiction that is claimed for the head of the Roman Catholic Church. No, Peter had no notion of anything like that, nor did anyone else, even though he is generally conceded (and I agree) to have been the bishop of Rome.

if you look at the Bible it seems clear that Peter was given a special role in the councils

Montalban · #18 7th June 2009, 07:12 AM

This is part of a book I hope one day to finish on the Papacy
The First Pope
“Marcellinus (d. 304) is the first Bishop of Rome whom sources show used the title of pope.”[1]

The fact that all the Apostles were equal continues in the form of the church governance; we consider that all bishops are equal. Catholics however try to suggest that one bishop (the Pope) was always considered the head of the church. Yet, my own church is Antiochian Orthodox, a See that was established by Peter before he went to Rome. Yet this church was lower in honour than Alexandria founded by St. Mark. Why is it that a church founded by the ‘primary Apostle’ be accorded lower honour than that founded by St. Mark? Roman apologists can not answer this.

Further Jerusalem, the ground on which the Christian world sprung was under the presidency of Caesarea until elevated to the status of patriarchate by the Council of Chalcedon in 451; because the Roman system of government had Caesarea as the provincial capital – it was thus the more important city, as far as the empire was concerned, and the early church structure followed that of the Roman empire; with dioceses approximating to Roman jurisdictions.

It is recognized that the See of Rome was granted preference in honour. But this was based on the fact that Rome was the political centre of the empire. Thus it was because of politics; the size and importance of the city itself, not some Petrine special spirituality that saw Rome’s place established.

The earliest accounts mention the fact that Rome’s Christian community was founded by Sts. Peter and Paul. Irenaeus wrote that Peter was not acting alone… "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church."[2]

Ireneaus goes on to say

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate."[3]

Eusebius also accepts this role for Linus "The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.[4]

In the west the idea of Petrine supremacy would rise, and accordingly later writers would tend to stress the role of St. Peter in Rome’s foundations, but the earlier writers were not burdened by such dogma. Reading Irenaus further we see that he doesn’t count a bishops line from St. Peter at all, but from Linus…"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."[5] What also is important to note again is the repeating of the idea that Linus’ tenure came after and upon the foundation of all the Apostles, plural.

Even a Pope, Leo the Great stated that Rome’s position was based on the Apostles Peter and Paul, and that these two Apostles were equal in power.[6]

Many people accept the idea that Peter was the first Pope. Some early sources state that St. Peter did not even ordain Linus as the first Bishop of Rome!

“Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens (Clement), after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter."[7]

It is worth repeating these points. Both Sts. Peter and Paul were instrumental in the foundation of the church in Rome. That, and the fact that Rome was the heart of the empire lead Rome to have a degree of ‘honour’ amongst the churches. This ‘honour’ was not one of goverenence as we shall see in the next chapter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
[1] Pope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[2] Irenaus, “Against Heresies”, Book III.1.1

[3] Ibid. Book III.3.2-3

[4] Eusebius “The History of the Church” Book V Chapter VI. Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome

[5] Irenaus. Book III.3.3

[6] Leo “Sermon LXXXII”. (On the Feast Of the Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29).) quoted at
[7] “Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions,” Book 7, Chapter XLVI – “Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?”

Montalban · #19 7th June 2009, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Rhamiel

if you look at the Bible it seems clear that Peter was given a special role in the councils

This is part of my book...

The Council of Jerusalem as shown by the Book of Acts
We can see how the Apostles viewed each other in the book of Acts.

“This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.” (Acts 15:2).

That a) they were in dispute, and b) they sought the elders, not Peter alone.

When we look at the first council, that of Jerusalem (in Acts 15) it was presided over by James, who also rendered the final judgment, even as
Peter was present. ”When they finished, St. James spoke up: ”It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”

Eusebius wrote of this in his church history (note he also quotes Clement – a supposed Papal prince). “This James, whom the early Christians surnamed the Righteous because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the records tell us, to be elected to the Episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church. Clement, in Outlines Book VI, puts it thus: “Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honoured them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.”[1]

Looking at Acts 15:22 we see “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers” That is, the council in session decided, not a pontiff, Peter.

There are a few important things to note about this council. St. James was the bishop of Jerusalem, therefore the meeting was held in his See, and thus he presided, not Peter, because Jerusalem was then the most important Christian centre.

Some Roman Catholics claim that when St. Peter spoke, all were silent. When someone spoke, whomever it was, no one else spoke over them. That's called politeness
Thus...
"When they finished, St. James spoke up:..."
That is, St. James waited his turn.
Earlier...
Acts 15:12

"The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and St. Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. "
They too had the floor, and everyone was silent.
c) MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL James clearly made the decision
Acts 15:19
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.
Note also...
Acts 15:23
"With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.
25
So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul-- 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ That is, 'we' decided this, 'we' voted on this. Not "Peter" decided this. Thus
"But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing imperiously."
-St. John Chrysotomon[2]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
[1] Eusebius “The History of the Church” – II.I

[2] John Chrysotomon, Homily III on Acts 1:12

Albion · #20 7th June 2009, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Rhamiel

if you look at the Bible it seems clear that Peter was given a special role in the councils

As explained previously, that role is something like being the recording secretary. He didn't chair the meeting. He didn't make the decision for the assembly of over a hundred people. Therefore, in no way can it be said that this shows him to have been considered the ruler of the Church worldwide and infallible as well!

And THAT's exactly what has to inhere in any claim that Peter was a Pope, thought of himself as a Pope, or was seen as a Pope by others in his own time as one--IOW Pope as Pope is defined by the RCC. If those powers claimed for any Pope by the RCC are not present, no Pope.

You can't just say "Peter was important, therefore he was a Pope." You might just as well say, "Peter had a role of importance, so he was the first President of the USA since, after all, that's a very important position."