Catholics, When did Peter Become Pope?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The last guy beat me to it. Yes. Peter was an Apostle. This made him an itinerant planter and encourager of churches. For a very long time, the church at Rome was just another Christian church. There is no evidence that Peter was ever bishop of Rome. The title of "Pope" was not instituted until much later, maybe hundreds of years.

My view is that a group of church leaders in Rome decided that the Roman church should be the focal point of the Latin churches and that the bishop of Rome should have authority over all the other churches. The bishop of Constantinope disagreed, and they both excommunicated each other. This caused the major division between the Roman church and the Eastern Orthodox church. (This is a very free paraphrase of church history and open to challenge for accuracy.)

At some later stage, someone decided that Peter should have been the first "pope", and so they made it so. Of course, the Roman church dominated all the others by that stage, so no one questioned it. I supposed that anyone who opposed it would have been excommunicated to shut them up.

It would be interesting if our Eastern Orthodox brethren on the forum could enlighten us about whether they thought that Peter was their first "pope", (or whatever they call their supreme head).

The main "proof" of the RCC being the "true" church, in their belief, is that Peter was the first pope and there has been an unbroken Apostolic succession of popes down the line. They would view all other Christian churches as heretical breakaways from the "true Apostolic" church.

But the Eastern Orthodox church can easily claim the same, because that church also has an unbroken heritage from the Apostles. So, we might have two major Christian churches claiming that they are the true Apostolic church.

Of course, the Inquisition, while it was in force, ensured that everyone under the auspices of the Roman church acknowledged that it was the true church under pain of torture and death.

There is no record that the Eastern Orthodox had an Inquisition to enforce loyalty to that church. Maybe everyone was happy with it and loyal to it voluntarily because its doctrines remained true to the Scriptures, while the Roman church included the writings of the church Fathers and the successive popes as equal to Scripture.

Well, that's a good stir of the wooden spoon. Let's see what comes out of this.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Oscarr,
You have it pretty scoped out.

The scriptures and tradition have Peter as the lead spokesman of the apostles but he never ruled over them, as has been mentioned, being rebuked by Paul. Peter would eventually make it to Rome and after settling down, he would become the leader of the Roman congregation. This primacy of Peter as the lead spokesman has been the example that the East saw regarding Rome.

Historically, by the 4-5th centuries, five patriarchal cities had risen to prominance (in order of primacy of honor): Rome (the old seat of the Roman Empire), Constantinople (the new seat of the Roman Empire), Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. This order of honor was offically established in both the 2nd and the 4th Ecumenical Councils. There was a LOT of politics involved with this as Alexandria and Antioch got bumped down the ladder.

After the western Roman empire fell to the Visigoths, the bishop of Rome became the center for western Christianity and not only had to be a spiritual ruler but also take on a more earthly rule because the emperor of the Roman empire ruled in Constantinople.

Over the centuries, Rome had to deal with various issues by itself, such as a resurgance of Arianism, which prompted the filioque to the Nicene creed. In addition, other cultural differences seperated western and eastern Christianity further, such as Latin and Greek, philosophical differences (think of how the legal language of law is based on Latin, whereas our medical terms are based on Greek, this also heavily influenced theology) and the rise of Islam in the Christian East.

By the 10th-11th centuries, the Papacy had grown to believe that the primacy of honor that it was due by the other bishops meant that the Bishop of Rome was supreme over the other patriarchs. In 1054, Pope Leo IX and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius finally had it out and excommunicated each other over the filoque. Things would be patched up here and there until the sack of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade in 1204 which would effectively end the union between Eastern and Western Christianity.

Hope this helps
Brian, Psalti and Reader

 

[Erose]

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.

Really? How about some proof for you bold claims? It would have to be historical since the Bible does not express your assertions.

 

[Abinadi]

Erose,

There is plenty of proof out there, I am just really short on time right now. But I will come back to you with some evidence as I have studied this in depth over the years, as have many theologians and historians. It is interesting that only Catholics assert the "Peter was the first pope" claim - it does not stand up to objective inquiry.
But in the meantime here is a question for you. Upon Peter's death who became the senior authority in the church? Many RC's will say it was Clement. However, what of John the Revelator? He was still alive and it was through him that the Lord revealed what we now call the book of Revelation. But if Clement was the leader of the church in succession to Peter as the Catholic church claims then surely such an important revelation, for the whole church, would have come through him.
There is, of course, scriptural precedent for God revealing his will for the whole church to it's leader; when God revealed that Gentiles were to be brought into the gospel the revelation came to the presiding apostle, ie. Peter, and not some local overseer.
The truth is that a Bishop is a local leader and is under the authority of the apostles. It was not the other way around.
Indeed, the catholic church itself claims that the modern office of Cardinal equates to that of apostle. And as they place cardinals over bishops they therefore acknowledge that bishops were under apostolic authority and not the other way around.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Indeed, the catholic church itself claims that the modern office of Cardinal equates to that of apostle. And as they place cardinals over bishops they therefore acknowledge that bishops were under apostolic authority and not the other way around.

No. Cardinal is an administrative rank. There are three levels of holy orders in the Catholic Church: deacon, priest, bishop. There are no more, and there are no less. Any other subdivision is purely administrative or honorific. An exception may be made here with the Pope, since he has a special role--but he is still actually a bishop.

 

[Dark_Lite]

It would be interesting if our Eastern Orthodox brethren on the forum could enlighten us about whether they thought that Peter was their first "pope", (or whatever they call their supreme head).

It is more or less recognized by the Orthodox that Peter became the bishop of Rome after he left Antioch. Where they disagree is papal supremacy. They think the Pope had a role as "first among equals," rather than the role that the Pope has currently.

 

[Erose]

There is plenty of proof out there, I am just really short on time right now. But I will come back to you with some evidence as I have studied this in depth over the years, as have many theologians and historians. It is interesting that only Catholics assert the "Peter was the first pope" claim - it does not stand up to objective inquiry.

Interesting that even Orthodox Theologians recognize that Peter was the first pope as well. It is also interesting that there are only three church group that have the history which stretches back that far and Protestantism isn't one of them. The goal of your theologians/historians is to refute this claim because if they cannot which truly they cannot then it weakens their stance of legitimacy. There is an interesting saying among us converts to the Catholic church. When a Protestant starts studying history and the Church Fathers with an open mind they usually end up becoming Catholic.

But in the meantime here is a question for you. Upon Peter's death who became the senior authority in the church? Many RC's will say it was Clement. However, what of John the Revelator? He was still alive and it was through him that the Lord revealed what we now call the book of Revelation. But if Clement was the leader of the church in succession to Peter as the Catholic church claims then surely such an important revelation, for the whole church, would have come through him.
There is, of course, scriptural precedent for God revealing his will for the whole church to it's leader; when God revealed that Gentiles were to be brought into the gospel the revelation came to the presiding apostle, ie. Peter, and not some local overseer.

That is a good question. My question is this where have you learned that it is only the Pope that possesses the power to teach? That only the Pope could possibly be a prophet? St. John was an Apostle, Mystic and Prophet in his own right. Why wouldn't God reveal to him what He wanted St. John to reveal? What does that have to do with the authority of the Pope. I truly do not understand your true point on this. The biggest issue I see here is that you guys really do not understand the position and the power of the Pope. You either give him too much power or too little and typically it is really non-factual what you truly believe who the Pope is.

The truth is that a Bishop is a local leader and is under the authority of the apostles. It was not the other way around.

The Apostles where the first bishops. I explained this earlier. Christ himself gave them the power when He breath upon them to receive the Holy Spirit, whatever sins you shall forgive shall be forgiven and whatever sins you retain shall be retained. There were during that time evangelizing bishops that were also called apostles such as St. Paul and St. Barnabas as well as the majority of the 12 Apostles, except for St James the Less who stayed over the Church in Jerusalem. You should also understand that during this early time Churches had to be established and where normally established by the Apostles including Paul and Barnabas. These great men stayed over these Churches until they were fully established and then they assigned and consecrated an overseer or Bishop to precide over the new Church. This was how it worked in the beginning.

Indeed, the catholic church itself claims that the modern office of Cardinal equates to that of apostle. And as they place cardinals over bishops they therefore acknowledge that bishops were under apostolic authority and not the other way around.

As has been pointed out there are only 3 levels in Holy Orders and they are bishop, priest, and deacon. Cardinals are bishops who have been given special honor or responsibility within the Church. These bishops represent the whole college of bishops when electing a new Pope after the previous one has passed away. You do have certain levels of in the Episcopal Office I conceed such as local Bishops which are over dioceses, Archbishops which are over Archdioceses (all dioceses within a large region or country) and then the Pope, who is over the whole church. But all of these men are bishops, some just have different responsibilities than others. That being said the college of bishops are the successors of the Apostles.

What your response shows is that you do not have true actual knowledge of the teachings of the Catholic church concerning the College of Bishops nor the office of the Papacy. But we will see if this improves as you do some research to refute my points.

God bless.

 

[Erose]

The last guy beat me to it. Yes. Peter was an Apostle. This made him an itinerant planter and encourager of churches. For a very long time, the church at Rome was just another Christian church. There is no evidence that Peter was ever bishop of Rome. The title of "Pope" was not instituted until much later, maybe hundreds of years.

No evidence that Peter was bishop of Rome? Peter was crucified in Rome. He spent his last days of existence in Rome founding and establishing that church. Since he was the Chief Apostle that was finding, organising and teaching these new Christians in Rome I would believe that it would not be a stretch to view him as the "Overseer" of the new Church of Rome until his death by crucifixion. Before he was martyred, he transferred his authority over to the new overseer, St. Linus, who was also martyred and the authority passed over to St. Clement and on and on until the present day Pope Benedict.

I will not disagree with you concerning the title of Pope which means "Papa" in English being used latter than Peter. But titles are not the focal point but rather the office.

My view is that a group of church leaders in Rome decided that the Roman church should be the focal point of the Latin churches and that the bishop of Rome should have authority over all the other churches. The bishop of Constantinope disagreed, and they both excommunicated each other. This caused the major division between the Roman church and the Eastern Orthodox church. (This is a very free paraphrase of church history and open to challenge for accuracy.)

You must not have done much study in church history have you? In the Church people just don't just get together and say that we are going to start teaching this or start teaching that that hasn't always been part of the Apostolic teaching. If this was even attempted there would have been incredible amount of uproar throughout the church during this attempt, even by Latin theologians who were probably even more outspoken against things like this than our Greek brothers.

Regretfully the split between the Greek and Latin churches was more political than religious in nature. There was alot more involved than what you want to make the claim thereof. They did not split over the Church of Rome being the first see. At that point it was accepted across the entire Christendom that Rome was the "first among equals" which was confirmed in the councils. The schism started when a emporer replaced the current Patriarch Ignatius with his own man "Photus". The Pope rightfully protested this action because the emporer did not have the right to do such a thing and attempted to put Ignatius back over the see of Constantiople. In my opinion, I do believe that the Pope was correct in this matter.

At some later stage, someone decided that Peter should have been the first "pope", and so they made it so. Of course, the Roman church dominated all the others by that stage, so no one questioned it. I supposed that anyone who opposed it would have been excommunicated to shut them up.

History establishes this. Peter was the first among the Apostles. He was the only one given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He was the one that Jesus conferred on to feed his lambs and feed his sheep. This was displayed in the Book of Acts with it being Peter being the one to step up and speak for the whole church at the time. Through his preaching, God established the first church in Jerusalem. It was Peter that stood before the Sanhedrin. People want to use the meeting between Peter and Paul where Paul stood up to him because he felt that Peter was doing something wrong to show that Peter wasn't what he is claimed to be. Peter with all the other Popes are human beings still. They make mistakes and Peter was making one. Paul did the right thing in pointing this out to Peter and I am sure that Peter took the rebuke with respect and thanked Paul for this gift of charity. This isn't a showing that Paul had greater authority than Peter, but rather Paul doing a charitous act in rebuking Peter.

It would be interesting if our Eastern Orthodox brethren on the forum could enlighten us about whether they thought that Peter was their first "pope", (or whatever they call their supreme head).

I will only point out at this point that the Bishop of Rome has always been seen as the "first among equals". What this means is debatable between our two sides.

The main "proof" of the RCC being the "true" church, in their belief, is that Peter was the first pope and there has been an unbroken Apostolic succession of popes down the line. They would view all other Christian churches as heretical breakaways from the "true Apostolic" church.

It is not the only "proof" we have. The seat of Peter is one of the assurances given to us by Jesus that His church would remain undefiled until his 2nd Coming. "You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and not even the gates of hell will stand against it." We are the true Church because that is what we are. We are the One, Holy, Catholic, Orthodox, and Apostolic Church. We are one under the Pope and the rest of the College of Bishops. We are holy due the Seven Sacrament given to us by Jesus. We are Catholic because of our universal teaching and evangelization throughout the Earth. We are Orthodox in our teachings in faith and morals. And we are Apostolic do to our historical background that can be traced all the way back to Jesus Christ through the Apostles. Can the Orthodox make these claims? Yes they can except for being "one"

But the Eastern Orthodox church can easily claim the same, because that church also has an unbroken heritage from the Apostles. So, we might have two major Christian churches claiming that they are the true Apostolic church.

Yes they can.

Of course, the Inquisition, while it was in force, ensured that everyone under the auspices of the Roman church acknowledged that it was the true church under pain of torture and death.

Later time and from what you wrote it is obvious that you haven't done much personal research on this topic and have only accepted the propaganda passed out by the anti-Catholic sources instead of true historical sources.

There is no record that the Eastern Orthodox had an Inquisition to enforce loyalty to that church. Maybe everyone was happy with it and loyal to it voluntarily because its doctrines remained true to the Scriptures, while the Roman church included the writings of the church Fathers and the successive popes as equal to Scripture.

I do not know enough of the history of the Orthodox after the separation to comment on that point. But I will comment on the last point. The Orthodox like Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition with the Sacred Scriptures being part of the the Sacred Tradition. Also the Roman church does not hold the writings of the Church Fathers as equal to Sacred Scripture, but rather the teachings of the Church Fathers are a part of the Sacred Tradition handed down to us by the Apostles.

Well, that's a good stir of the wooden spoon. Let's see what comes out of this.

Hopefully the truth. But anyway God bless.

 

[Hairy Tic]

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

## The Petrine function in the Church (which is the essence of what several centuries later became the Papal office) was certainly exercised after Pentecost.

He was not himself a bishop, still less a Pope - he was far more, because he was an Apostle. To call him a Pope or any other kind of bishop is to say less of him than the Bible does. He was not a bishop, at Rome or anywhere else - but those who are bishops of Rome, trace themselves back to him.

Rome probably had no "monarchical" bishops until the second century - until then, the Church there was governed by a presbyterium; it was, in that sense, Presbyterian. St.Clement was probably that member of the Roman presbytery who served as episkopos-overseer-bishop; & as St Peter calls himself a presbyter, he may have had a similar function & position: as a member of a "college" of presbyters-elders with "oversight" of & for all.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Oscarr,
You have it pretty scoped out.

The scriptures and tradition have Peter as the lead spokesman of the apostles but he never ruled over them, as has been mentioned, being rebuked by Paul. Peter would eventually make it to Rome and after settling down, he would become the leader of the Roman congregation. This primacy of Peter as the lead spokesman has been the example that the East saw regarding Rome.

Historically, by the 4-5th centuries, five patriarchal cities had risen to prominance (in order of primacy of honor): Rome (the old seat of the Roman Empire), Constantinople (the new seat of the Roman Empire), Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. This order of honor was offically established in both the 2nd and the 4th Ecumenical Councils. There was a LOT of politics involved with this as Alexandria and Antioch got bumped down the ladder.

After the western Roman empire fell to the Visigoths, the bishop of Rome became the center for western Christianity and not only had to be a spiritual ruler but also take on a more earthly rule because the emperor of the Roman empire ruled in Constantinople.

Over the centuries, Rome had to deal with various issues by itself, such as a resurgance of Arianism, which prompted the filioque to the Nicene creed. In addition, other cultural differences seperated western and eastern Christianity further, such as Latin and Greek, philosophical differences (think of how the legal language of law is based on Latin, whereas our medical terms are based on Greek, this also heavily influenced theology) and the rise of Islam in the Christian East.

By the 10th-11th centuries, the Papacy had grown to believe that the primacy of honor that it was due by the other bishops meant that the Bishop of Rome was supreme over the other patriarchs. In 1054, Pope Leo IX and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius finally had it out and excommunicated each other over the filoque. Things would be patched up here and there until the sack of Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade in 1204 which would effectively end the union between Eastern and Western Christianity.

Hope this helps
Brian, Psalti and Reader

This.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hairy Tic]

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?

## It has happened many times. A famous example is the rebuke of Alexander VI by Blessed Columba of Rieti - she denounced him to his face for the harm he was doing to the Church by his scandalous life, and he accepted the rebuke.

A Pope is supreme in authority & in duty of oversight - it does not follow that a Pope will be supreme in holiness, or even a decent human being. He is given immense authority in the Church, not for his own self-aggrandisement or praise, but to enable him to serve the Church as he is called to do. He is Pope for others, not for himself.

The holiest person in the Church is not even a member of the clergy, yet she is more excellent than any Pope

 

[Hairy Tic]

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.

## No odder than the lack of the word "Trinity" in the NT A thing can be, & be important, without being named what we name it.

The basis for the objection is anachronistic. Does it follow, that because neither Lincoln nor Davis had the A-bomb, neither had an army ?

The Papacy can exist & have a rather moderate scope in the Church at a particular time, yet be no less real for that. The authority exercised by Leo I in the West was less geographically extensive than that of Innocent III, & the geographical extent of the authority of JP2 was greater than that of either; yet all exercised the one authority of Christ bestowed on St. Peter. To have that authority is to be Pope. A man can rule all nations under heaven, but if he should lack that authority, he is not what the CC means by a Pope. Conversely, the Church would be no less really the CC if it shrank to having a few hundred people in it - as long as the Pope was its supreme earthly pastor.

The thing, not its name, is what matters.

 

[Hairy Tic]

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.

## To grant that he was head of the Church on earth, "in and under" Christ, is to grant most of what Catholics contend for.

The Papacy (in the modern sense) didn't really arise until St. Gregory the Great (590-604). That is important for the history of the See of Rome; not for the theological & doctrinal issues.

 

[Hairy Tic]

The last guy beat me to it. Yes. Peter was an Apostle. This made him an itinerant planter and encourager of churches. For a very long time, the church at Rome was just another Christian church. There is no evidence that Peter was ever bishop of Rome. The title of "Pope" was not instituted until much later, maybe hundreds of years.

My view is that a group of church leaders in Rome decided that the Roman church should be the focal point of the Latin churches and that the bishop of Rome should have authority over all the other churches. The bishop of Constantinope disagreed, and they both excommunicated each other. This caused the major division between the Roman church and the Eastern Orthodox church. (This is a very free paraphrase of church history and open to challenge for accuracy.)

## Can't spare the time, sorry

At some later stage, someone decided that Peter should have been the first "pope", and so they made it so. Of course, the Roman church dominated all the others by that stage, so no one questioned it. I supposed that anyone who opposed it would have been excommunicated to shut them up.

## The claim that Peter was first in order of time goes back to the first century - to Clement of Rome; completed by the words of later fathers such as Irenaeus & Polycarp. Long before the Roman church was in a position to "dominate" anything. To exercise authority, certainly - but that is wrong it seems only when Rome does it.

It would be interesting if our Eastern Orthodox brethren on the forum could enlighten us about whether they thought that Peter was their first "pope", (or whatever they call their supreme head).

The main "proof" of the RCC being the "true" church, in their belief, is that Peter was the first pope and there has been an unbroken Apostolic succession of popes down the line. They would view all other Christian churches as heretical breakaways from the "true Apostolic" church.

But the Eastern Orthodox church can easily claim the same, because that church also has an unbroken heritage from the Apostles. So, we might have two major Christian churches claiming that they are the true Apostolic church.

## The apostolicity of particular churches in the East, is not an objection to the Petrine succession and the bishops of Rome. And neither issue is the same as Apostolic Succession.

The Apostolic - not necessarily Petrine - foundation of the church at Rome is only one piece of evidence for the Roman claims. It wold be worthless if Christ had not bestowed the keys He exercises upon Peter. The alleged "proof" is no proof, because it does not ascend to the source of the claim for Rome's pre-eminence, which that bestowal & delegation is.

Of course, the Inquisition, while it was in force, ensured that everyone under the auspices of the Roman church acknowledged that it was the true church under pain of torture and death.

There is no record that the Eastern Orthodox had an Inquisition to enforce loyalty to that church. Maybe everyone was happy with it and loyal to it voluntarily because its doctrines remained true to the Scriptures, while the Roman church included the writings of the church Fathers and the successive popes as equal to Scripture.

Well, that's a good stir of the wooden spoon. Let's see what comes out of this.

## There was no need to bring in the Inquisition - it has no more relevance to the issue than the Salem witches have to the "Half-way Covenant" controversy.

 

[Mark from Montana]

I often wonder why evangelicals are so rude when they talk to Catholic Christians.

 

[barryrob]

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

NEVER!

​

The word Hebrew ’Ab·ba’´ came to be applied as a title of honor to the Jewish rabbis in the early centuries of the Common Era and is found as such in the Babylonian Talmud. (Berakhot 16b) The one acting in the capacity of vice-president of the Jewish Sanhedrin already held the title of ’Av, or Father of the Sanhedrin. In later periods the title was also applied to the bishops of the Coptic, Ethiopic, and Syrian churches and, more particularly, became the title of the Bishop of Alexandria, thereby making him the "papa" or "pope" of that part of the Eastern church. The English words "abbot" and "abbey" are both derived from the Aramaic ’ab·ba’´. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, objected to the use of the title "abbot" as applied to the Catholic monks in his time and did so on the basis that it violated Jesus’ instructions at Matthew 23:9: "Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One."

Holy Father, Never!​

 

[perrfekt]

popes are fallable sinners. just like everyone else.

 

[canadian_man_44]

In reading over this topic I noticed that it has been pointed out in Matthew where Jesus said "upon this rock I will build my church" in reference to Peter. Let's take it in context of how it was actually written, which means you have to take the verses before so here it is.

" 15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "

Jesus wasn't referring to Peter when he spoke of the "rock". He was speaking about the revelation that Peter had just given. "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. " This is the "rock" or foundation that the church was built on.

 

[Lord Herdsetk]

I often wonder why evangelicals are so rude when they talk to Catholic Christians.

I agree with you there. I agree on very little with the Catholic church outside the basics, but that's no reason to jump down people's throats. They're still fellow brothers and sisters in Christ =\ No reason to tear them down at all.

 

[CatholicandaHalf]

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?

if someone rebukes the president, does that make him not president?