If not Peter, who was the first RC Pope?

tadoflamb said:

This is what happens when I read the bible for myself.

Click to expand...

What happens, tell me?

The Seat of Moses/Chair of Peter concept is touched on in some early Church writings, I haven't really ever seen it expressed as boldly as I have submitted.

Click to expand...

Do you believe Jesus is telling his disciples to sit on Moses seat?

As a Catholic I know where the chair is.

Click to expand...

It just "might be" my protestant bi focals because I cannot see this (singular) chair A THEY (with the leaven of hypocricy we are to beware of) and have seated themselves on being that Jesus said is YOUR CHAIR lol...

HEY, But if (lets speculate) but if we can see it as Prots over Catholics seating themselves on it then we would need to observe what he prots say along with the same warriness

Just yanking your chain Tadster you know I just play

Similar to the vein of this thread. If that's not the chair, then where did the chair go?

Click to expand...

Could it not be replaced by the seat of Christ (who is the end of the law for those who believe) and the twelves thrones Jesus said belonged to them to judge the twelve tribes possibly? Has that thought ever crossed your mind?

Did Jesus's instructions to the apostles lose it's revelance.

Click to expand...

As it pertains to the law given through Moses in the old covenant?

John 9:28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.

1Peter 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

Looks like a "who is who" disciples (of who) fight

Furthermore, does this verse apply to our live today. For me it does. It speaks to the transfer of authority (keys) and that whoever is in the Chair has the authority to teach. Not to behave like them because,

"They do not practice what they preach."

Click to expand...

True

Acts 23:3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

I can see the concept

For me, the Incarnation has huge implications. For one, we have a visible God. As we've been saying at the Communion Antiphon at mass all week:

"Taste and see the goodness of the Lord."

In light of this thread, if I consider the famous verses in scripture "upon this rock" and "feed my sheep" and then look over towards Rome and there in St. Peter's over the tomb of St. Peter is the Chair of St. Peter upon who sits the successor of St. Peter, Benedict XVI (now gloriously reigning) , who celebrates the same Eucharist I celebrate at my homely little parish here in Too-sun.

Like I said, it's one of the implications of God made flesh and because the goodness of God can be discerned with all the senses it makes the Christian faith very tangible and clear to me. I don't have any fuzziness about who our first pope was.

Click to expand...

This is in fulfilment of here (spoken of beforehand) in the PLURAL

Jerm 3:15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

As He says to Peter "Feed my sheep" (which is the flock of God) and its in accord with "my heart" asking him...do you love me?

Likewise does Peter himself writes in accord with what was written prior in Jerm 3:15 (whereas its GOD that has made them such) and speaks in the same here...

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Because HE gives them and makes them so (according to his own heart)

Jerm 3:15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

They agreed in one another

88Devin07 said:

Also, Peter himself never says the rock is himself or his authority:

I Peter 2:3-8
If so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious. To whom coming, [as unto] a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, [and] precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Also:

I Peter 5:1-4
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory.

As we saw above, St. John Chrysostom and Origen both never said St. Peter held any authority over other Apostles/Bishops.
Now we see that Peter himself never says he holds any special authority.

Click to expand...

Elders (plural). Asia Minor. Feed the flock of God.

OR

Pope (singular). From Rome. Feed the ...

Athanasias said:

Ok LOL. Here is one on topic that you can answer for us. If not Peter then who was the first Catholic Pope?

Click to expand...

I'll have to ask my catholic relatives I dont know much about catholic stuff, but they give me ten answers too so dont think I can be any help.

Does it say Peter when to the Catholic church somewheres?

Standing Up said:

Elders (plural). Asia Minor. Feed the flock of God.

OR

Pope (singular). From Rome. Feed the ...

Click to expand...

Peter is in accord with Jeremiah who speaks of the plural (not singular) best to stick with the true apostle Peter says

88Devin07 said:

Tad, the problem is that you are taught in the Roman Catholic Church that you hold Apostolic Succession and that your Pope holds universal authority over everyone because of a special authority given to St. Peter over the Apostles.

The thing is, the Orthodox Church affirms that your church in fact doesn't hold any apostolic succession, and affirms that the Church has taught since the time of the Apostles that St. Peter held a special place, but had no special authority over any of the other Apostles.

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest Church in Christendom because it was the only Church in the West, and it was the first Church to really reach the Americas. However, even when it reached the Americas, it didn't convert the natives peacefully, but it converted many by force. Roman Catholicism was pretty much imposed on Latin America, Central America and South America. Roman Catholicism was also the religion of major colonizing nations like Spain, Italy, France etc... The Roman Catholic Church also never really was subject to foreign rule and wasn't subject to suppression by other religions.

Click to expand...

And yet, I have to wonder, how could a Church with seemingly so much blood on our hands still be around and so large today. I have to ask, how well do you think the Orthodox Church as fared since we broke off from you.

Look at protestantism. How well do you think they have fared since they split?

Furthermore, in the United States we enjoy great religious liberties. Today I can practice my Catholic faith fully without fear of reprisal. However, the Church has had to overcome typical anti-Catholic stereotyping and have flourished in the US. Protestantism as well has experienced an explosion of growth and subsequent denominationalism. Besides, my Orthodox sources tell me y'all got to the continent first.

So, why is it that Orthodoxy is still relatively obscure? I wasn't even aware of you until I converted to Catholicism, and didn't have any experience with you until I joined CF. In a country, where religous freedom is paramount, you'd think the Orthodox would be everywhere.

So, if we're heretical and cut off from the Church, by all outside appearances, it sure doesn't seem so. Of course, this might be my typical American Catholic arrogance speaking and I'm not committed by this kind of thinking but I find the image of the Catholic branch being broken off from the Orthodox tree comical at best.

In light of this thread, I believe most people know who the pope is. I can't tell you the name of one Orthodox patriarch.

But maybe this all doesn't matter.

Also, I wasn't intending it to be rhetoric, but what you must understand is that those things listed above were in fact innovations to the faith. They are what separates our two Churches and are the reasons why there can never be unity between our Churches until your Church rejects those points.

Click to expand...

Your words "the innovations of your pope" are something I more used to hearing from our protestant detractors. If you want to avoid getting confused with them you should avoid using their language.

We aren't really anti-Roman Catholics, we don't typically bug your Church except in certain circumstances. We don't live to be anti-Roman Catholics or anti-Papists. We don't live our lives trying to debunk your Church. But when you ask us about you, we must give you the Orthodox, Catholic answers to your questions, which, are because of the state of your Church, going to contradict your Church.

Click to expand...

That's fine but by your own word I hope you can understand why you might get confused with protestants.

Fireinfolding said:

Could it not be replaced by the seat of Christ (who is the end of the law for those who believe) and the twelves thrones Jesus said belonged to them to judge the twelve tribes possibly? Has that thought ever crossed your mind?

Click to expand...

Tangible (a Lutheran) brought it up in another thread. I thought it was a good answer, especially for those on the 'invisible' side of the Church.

Jerm 3:15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

As He says to Peter "Feed my sheep" (which is the flock of God) and its in accord with "my heart" asking him...do you love me?

Likewise does Peter himself writes in accord with what was written prior in Jerm 3:15 (whereas its GOD that has made them such) and speaks in the same here...

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Because HE gives them and makes them so (according to his own heart)

Jerm 3:15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

They agreed in one another

Click to expand...

Good stuff there, Fi-ya. My question is, what are they going to be fed with?

Could it possibly be Holy Eucharist?

tadoflamb said:

Tangible (a Lutheran) brought it up in another thread. I thought it was a good answer, especially for those on the 'invisible' side of the Church.

Click to expand...

The flesh of His body is seen, it is the who is Spirit invisible (to them) but percievable (by His)

John 14:9 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Seeing Him who is invisible is spoken of because we look not at what is seen (with our carnal eyes) but what is unseen (with our spiritual eyes)

2Cr 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

As is His Spirit

Good stuff there, Fi-ya. My question is, what are they going to be fed with?

Could it possibly be Holy Eucharist?

Click to expand...

God says feed them "understanding" which comes by the Son of God who is the true bread from heaven correct?

Paul is the one who speaks of the other, which doth "SHEW" the Lords death TILL HE COME correct?

tadoflamb said:

And yet, I have to wonder, how could a Church with seemingly so much blood on our hands still be around and so large today. I have to ask, how well do you think the Orthodox Church as fared since we broke off from you.

Click to expand...

It's exactly because your Church has so much blood on it's hands. It's the same reason Islam is so huge today. The number of adherents doesn't = orthodoxy.

Look at protestantism. How well do you think they have fared since they split?

Click to expand...

Schism begats schism, the Roman Catholic Church broke from the Orthodox, there were bound to be even more fractures from the Roman Catholic Church, and those Churches were bound to fracture even more.

Furthermore, in the United States we enjoy great religious liberties. Today I can practice my Catholic faith fully without fear of reprisal. However, the Church has had to overcome typical anti-Catholic stereotyping and have flourished in the US. Protestantism as well has experienced an explosion of growth and subsequent denominationalism. Besides, my Orthodox sources tell me y'all got to the continent first.

Click to expand...

Actually, we really didn't get to the continent first. The first Orthodox missionaries arrived in the 1700s in Alaska. Before then, there were Orthodox Christians that came (like St. Brendan the Explorer), but it wasn't intended to be a lasting presence.

So, why is it that Orthodoxy is still relatively obscure? I wasn't even aware of you until I converted to Catholicism, and didn't have any experience with you until I joined CF. In a country, where religous freedom is paramount, you'd think the Orthodox would be everywhere.

Click to expand...

Two words: Islam and Communism
Before the Schism, the Eastern Roman Empire had been holding back the Muslims from invading Europe. They did this so successfully that the Muslims had to swing around Africa and try to enter Europe through Spain. This overstretched the Muslims and they were repelled by the Western Roman Empire. Over time, more and more Orthodox nations/regions fell under Muslim control. The Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem had all fallen under Muslim control. Eventually, after the Schism, and after the dreaded Fourth Crusade where your crusaders sacked Constantinople, the defenses of the Eastern Roman Empire were gradually weakened. In 1453, Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks. At this point, the entirety of what was once the Eastern Roman Empire had fallen under Muslims control. The only sovereign Orthodox nation/region left without oppression was Russia. The Orthodox jurisdictions in the East remained isolated from the West for many years. Russia was the only Church that had some fair amount of consistent contact with the West. (But it's connection to the East remained stronger)
Eventually, in 1917, the entirety of the Russian Empire fell under the influence of Communism and the Orthodox Church was severely oppressed in Russia. (some 60 mil. Orthodox were killed in Russia from 1917-1990)

Before the fall of Russia, it was the ONLY Orthodox nation capable of missionary work. The other Orthodox Churches were all under oppression.

Most of the Orthodox in the USA (save for the last 30-40 years) had been immigrants that had fled their respective nations to escape oppression. Most were afraid of being oppressed again, and so they kept to themselves. They focused on merely surviving, and they weren't entirely focused on missionary work. (since in their old countries, that meant certain death)

That is the reason why the Orthodox Church isn't huge, it was under oppression for almost the past 1000 years. Whereas the Roman Catholic Church experienced not just freedom, but dominance (political and religious) over the Western World.

So, if we're heretical and cut off from the Church, by all outside appearances, it sure doesn't seem so. Of course, this might be my typical American Catholic arrogance speaking and I'm not committed by this kind of thinking but I find the image of the Catholic branch being broken off from the Orthodox tree comical at best.

Click to expand...

I guess that is your prerogative. But it isn't just modern Orthodox that affirm this fact that your Church broke off, it's been like this for 1000 years.

In light of this thread, I believe most people know who the pope is. I can't tell you the name of one Orthodox patriarch.

Click to expand...

Does that really matter? Again, we are living in a part of the world where Roman Catholicism is dominant and most people have no clue what Eastern Orthodoxy is... I would bet if you went to the East that you would find people who knew who their Patriarch/Bishop was, but couldn't name the Roman Catholic Pope.

Your words "the innovations of your pope" are something I more used to hearing from our protestant detractors. If you want to avoid getting confused with them you should avoid using their language.

Click to expand...

What kind of language should I use then? Greek? Russian? Latin? I speak English, and therefore, I'm going to speak English and use English words to argue my points. If they are similar to Protestant terms, so what, am I to be expected to come up with new words and terminology?

That's fine but by your own word I hope you can understand why you might get confused with protestants.

Click to expand...

No, I'm sorry but I still don't understand why we are confused with Protestants. The Pope was the first one to "Protest", not us.

I agree with Devin, afterall what does it profit is there in using a foriegn language to gain a hearer? Especially when others (perhaps prots in this case) only know their own sorta language? Even after a spiritual truth it could very well mirror what the apostles did (differently ofcourse, yet similiarly as well) . They didnt deliberately try to make themselves foreign to the hearer, I mean, what kind of example is that? If you want to gain another (God give ya another tongue yanno?) whether that be the tongue of a prot or a nation yanno? Show ya care or something if souls is what you desire to gain (and you feel they are lost or less superior somehow) not just look down your nose at folks and spout at them in words they dont understand, makes sense to me

Devin speaks in words more easily understood for me (personally)

Athanasias said:

Thats nice. Did you know that other Catholic historians like Dr. Warren Carroll of Christendom college and Kenneth Whitehead in his book One Holy Catholic and Aposotlic and the Secular historians of the Webster encyclopedia and the Catholic historians of the Catholic encyclopedia of History and the protestant historian JND Kelly says Peter was?? So that argument doesn't matter.

You see it really doesn't matter what a liberal Catholic historian or theologian may say as they say all kinds of things and some of them deny the virgin birth.

What matter is that we offically teach that it was Peter. If you don't beleive me go on the Vasticans website and look at the list!

Now who did you say the first Pope was again??

Click to expand...

LEO

And i could show you that the Peterine primacy was not known for all ages as YOUR church claims. NO proof in the first couple hundred years of Christianity...
A challenge to YOU,
find even ONE early church father in the first 500 years of Christianity that acknowledged the following;

~Peter was the rock, this set him apart from the other apostles,
~Peter alone holds the keys separate from binding and loosing,
~Peter was the bishop of Rome, the only bishop all this is relevant to is the bishop of Rome,
~this established bishop was the universal head of the church.

simonthezealot said:

LEO

And i could show you that the Peterine primacy was not known for all ages as YOUR church claims. NO proof in the first couple hundred years of Christianity...
A challenge to YOU,
find even ONE early church father in the first 500 years of Christianity that acknowledged the following;

~Peter was the rock, this set him apart from the other apostles,
~Peter alone holds the keys separate from binding and loosing,
~Peter was the bishop of Rome, the only bishop all this is relevant to is the bishop of Rome,
~this established bishop was the universal head of the church.

Click to expand...

Sure I can but that is not what the thread is about. So who was the first Pope of the Catholci faith?? Leo?? Well then you contradict the others on this board so who is right???

Athanasias said:

Sure I can but that is not what the thread is about. So who was the first Pope of the Catholci faith?? Leo?? Well then you contradict the others on this board so who is right???

Click to expand...

So what if i contradict them. I know whose written what and much of what's recorded. This thread isn't about if we can't agree on someone else it must be true either.

Athanasias said:

Sure I can but that is not what the thread is about.

Click to expand...

No you can't, certainly not before Leo.
I'll start a challenge thread.

simonthezealot said:

No you can't, certainly not before Leo.
I'll start a challenge thread.

Click to expand...

OK

Kind of funny everyone wants to say Peter when there was no RCC around at that time. Makes you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

spiritwarrior37 said:

Kind of funny everyone wants to say Peter when there was no RCC around at that time. Makes you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Click to expand...

So, tell us the date the Catholic Church was founded and we have the name of our first pope!

tadoflamb said:

So, tell us the date the Catholic Church was founded and we have the name of our first pope!

Click to expand...

Kinda depends on how you define Catholic, but the Roman "Catholic" Church started with Sixtus I, c115.

That is to whom Irenaeus inadvertently traced its beginning when Sixtus formed a custom, not adhering to strict accuracy; that is, it was man-made vesus apostolic. Thus spoke Irenaeus.

So again, I'd say Sixtus I for the first Pontifex Maximus within the "Catholic Church", which became the Roman Catholic Church.

Great now theres two kinds of catholics?

I just cant keep up

chestertonrules said:

He was never a pope and didn't even convert until right before he died.

Click to expand...

True. St. Constantine was a Roman emperor, not a bishop.

I am going with Pope Corkey the III in the year 1545 when the RRCC(Real Roman Catholic Church) was really founded!

LOL. Actually as sad as its sounds I actually had a younger(21 year old) braisen Lutheran on this site tell me the Catholic church was not invented till the council of Trent when it said it was.LOL.

I jsut don't know who to beleive??LOL