Catholics, When did Peter Become Pope?

[Rescued One]

Was it immediately after Christ's death or later? Or was it before Christ's death?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Was it immediately after Christ's death or later? Or was it before Christ's death?

Does it matter? It was when Christ created the Church.

 

[Rescued One]

Does it matter? It was when Christ created the Church.

When did Christ create the Church?

 

[Dark_Lite]

When did Christ create the Church?

Does it matter? Pentecost.

 

[Rescued One]

I thought maybe Paul had authority over Peter.

Galatians 2
11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

 

[RufustheRed]

Does it matter? Pentecost.

Why do you keep asking "Does it matter?" Obviously, it matters to the person asking the question. If you don't want to respond, just leave it alone.

Rufus

 

[Rao]

Was it immediately after Christ's death or later? Or was it before Christ's death?

I cannot say if there's a day when he became the head of the Church "officially", or if it was a gradual process while Jesus teached him and the apostles.

There's a couple of passages in the Gospels which might be seen as a sort of "investiture": when Jesus tells Peter three times to tend for his sheep, or when Jesus tells Peter that he will be the rock upon which His Church will be built. Maybe if you're looking for a specific moment, you could consider either of these two.

If you mean instead when Peter was declared Pope by the other believers, I am not sure if he actually has ever been... I vaguely remember that he might not have been called "Pope" at all during his life, but really I don't know.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I thought maybe Paul had authority over Peter.

Galatians 2
11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

The fact that Peter was rebuked by Paul and some others, and that he denied Jesus three times, shows his imperfections. Yet, God still raised him to be the first Pope. Classic case of what Jesus does. Takes the lowly and transforms their lives.

 

[Rescued One]

The fact that Peter was rebuked by Paul and some others, and that he denied Jesus three times, shows his imperfections. Yet, God still raised him to be the first Pope. Classic case of what Jesus does. Takes the lowly and transforms their lives.

My question doesn't concern Peter's perfection or imperfection. I'm wondering why a Cardinal or Bishop or Priest would rebuke the Pope. Is that normal procedure in the Roman Catholic church?

 

[Dark_Lite]

My question doesn't concern Peter's perfection or imperfection. I'm wondering why a Cardinal or Bishop or Priest would rebuke the Pope. Is that normal procedure in the Roman Catholic church?

Your question is too slanted. Have Popes been rebuked or condemned before? Yes. See the really corrupt Popes at certain periods in the Middle Ages. Is it "normal?" No.

 

[DesertSky]

Oh, 2000 years ago, give or take.

 

[MrPolo]

My question doesn't concern Peter's perfection or imperfection. I'm wondering why a Cardinal or Bishop or Priest would rebuke the Pope. Is that normal procedure in the Roman Catholic church?

Even St. Catherine of Sienna rebuked the Pope in her time hundreds of years ago. So it's not limited to other bishops. But I wouldn't say it's a frequent occurrence.

Paul rebuking Peter was significant in this way---he spoke of how he rebuked Peter "to his face." That means Peter was somebody important. Paraphrasing: "I, Paul, stood up to PETER, to his face!!"

The primacy of Peter however, is riddled throughout the New Testament and the incident you cite does not trump the volumes of examples of Peter's primacy. Peter is mentioned far more than the other apostles combined, almost always listed first when groups of them are listed, called "protos" which means first in rank, spoke first at Pentecost, spoke first at the council of Jerusalem, etc... Here are more examples from Scripture.

God bless!

 

[Sargent_Pepper]

Does it matter? It was when Christ created the Church.

I suppose you have some proof from the early Christians that Peter was pope?

 

[Sargent_Pepper]

riginally Posted by Phoebe Ann View Post Was it immediately after Christ's death or later? Or was it before Christ's death?

Does it matter? It was when Christ created the Church.

Yes it does matter. The truth always matters, and if the RC claim of Peter being the first pope and Roman popes are supreme rulers of the entire church by virtue of being Peter's successor is false, then your church has been committing fraud for centuries.

 

[Sargent_Pepper]

Yet, God still raised him to be the first Pope. C

I find it rather odd that the early Christians had never heard of Peter being pope. We find no such teaching or position in the early church, or that Roman bishops were the supreme rulers of the church. What you are talking about is a later Roman invention that has no basis in fact.

 

[Erose]

Was it immediately after Christ's death or later? Or was it before Christ's death?

Ann, it was alluded to before the death of our Lord in Matt 16: 16-19

Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The Lord is using alot of the same language that was used in the book of Isaiah when referring to a king or leader.

And confirmed after His resurrection in John 21: 15-19

When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

The lambs refer to the whole Church while the sheep refer to the leaders of the Church.

If you read the accounts after the resurrection in all of the gospels and the beginning chapters of Acts with an open mind you should deduce that Peter had a very special authority in the early church.

 

[Erose]

I thought maybe Paul had authority over Peter.

Galatians 2
11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Popes and Bishops are human beings and at times do err. When this happens, there are those who stand up to correct them. This is not against Catholic teaching on the Infallibility of the Pope called Ex Cathedra, since if the Pope errs he cannot be speaking Ex Cathedra.

 

[Erose]

I suppose you have some proof from the early Christians that Peter was pope?

There are many quotes from the early church especially from both Clements. In the Epistle of St Clement, who was the successor of Peter, to the Corinthians shows that even though he was not the Bishop of Corinth he still held primacy there. St. Clement of Alexandria in his writings expressed primacy of the seat of Peter. St Ignatius in his writings refers to the primacy of the Church of Rome among all churches and alluded to the primacy of its Bishop. The list can go on and on. I would recommend to you to research this on websites that are not necessarily anti-catholic and emphasize the historical aspect of the Church.

 

[Erose]

riginally Posted by Phoebe Ann View Post Was it immediately after Christ's death or later? Or was it before Christ's death?

Yes it does matter. The truth always matters, and if the RC claim of Peter being the first pope and Roman popes are supreme rulers of the entire church by virtue of being Peter's successor is false, then your church has been committing fraud for centuries.

I agree with you that the truth matters and this truth matters a great deal especially if the Christian people ever hope be become One again as Jesus prayed that we would be. I disagree with your second claim of course and there is no historical, theological or Biblical proof of your second claim. Just because people don't want to believe in the Primacy of the Pope over the whole church and the Bishops having primacy over the local churches doesn't mean that it isn't true.

 

[Abinadi]

In my view Peter, though head of the church, was never "Pope".
This was an office created many years after the demise of the apostolic quorum. The office of bishop and apostle are not the same.