If Peter wasn't the first pope, who was?

[Root of Jesse]

It is not true that "[Pope] Pius died in 55 ad." Comparing six different official popes lists his end date is 154/155/157/161. Plus I already gave answer that the "155" date is probably because Marcus Aurelius took some role from 156.

I made a typo. 155.

All the pope/emperor matches evidences have to be considered before it can be proven whether the match between the two lists is true or false.

You're making up the rules now...

I have now done all the first 16 popes except for 3 of them (11th-13th), though I still left out some matches. But I won't post them all here, they can be seen at https://biblehistory.createaforum.com/history-between-acts-and-now/popes-list/ . Just two examples of good matches below:

From Pope "Peter" = Nero:
Both associated with choir/singing:
Peter: In the Eastern Church Peter is called Cotyphaeus "choir-director".
Nero: "Nero was encouraged to sing and perform in public by the senate...." Nero "sang to the lyre". ("Nero fiddled while Rome burnt/burned". Vespasian fell asleep during one of the emperors lyre sessions.)

Cotyphaeus can also be translated "Lead Singer". Besides all that, Nero martyred Peter, so they ain't the same person.

From Pope Zephyrinus = emperor (Septimus) Severus:
Both similar education:
Zephyrinus:
"The pope is described ... as a simple man without education. This is evidently to be understood as meaning that Zephyrinus had not taken the higher studies...."
Septimius Severus:
"Little else is known of the young Severus' education, but according to Cassius Dio the boy had been eager for more education than he had actually got."

Zephyrinus was born in Rome, Septimus was born in Africa. Quality match, indeed.

There are too many quality matches for me to doubt the match of the two lists.
But i won't argue it here anymore since you seem to not want to. I will finish writing the first 16 popes and post them in the forum I thread gave link to above. People are free to try write a rebuttal from that if they wish and are able.

 

[Philip_B]

Perhaps a cool head and a little clarity will help. Quite a bit has been made of the term Pontifex Maximus.

The term was used in the religion of Old Rome, (mythros) and the role had significance in terms of the ordering of life, and duties included.

• Ceremonials for pestilence, lightning, etc.
• Temples, sacred places, etc.
• Regulation of the calendar
• Burying-places, and worship of ancestors.
• Oversight of all legal patrician marriages.
• Law of adoption and of succession.
• Regulation of the public morals.

Whilst the name has often been taken to mean 'Supreme Priest', the true origins of the name mean 'Great Bridge Builder'. The Bridges in Ancient Rome were significant in that they allowed trade and the collection of revenues, and also formed a vital part of the defence of the city in time of assault.

Constantine conquered Rome when he crossed the Milvian Bridge. The city had been defended and the bridges impeded with large boulders for protection. Constantine arrived to see these defences and realised he was clearly outnumbered. Maxentius his brother in law consulted the Mythros priests who advised him that he would win, so he went out to meet Constantine. As a result of the defences they could only make their way across the bridge in trickles which enabled them to be overcome. Maxentius ordered the construction of a temporary bridge of boats to enable the troops to cross, and he himself drowned making that crossing. Constantine had his body retrieved and beheaded it, thus claiming victory.
Constantine became both Caesar and Augustus and also Pontifex Maximus. It seems he relinquished this title when he moved the capital to the old site of Byzantium and founded Nova Romanum, or Constantinople as it was called, a rather more Christian city dedicated to the Virgin Mother of God.

When Tertullian used the term Pontifex Maximus to describe Pope Callixtus I (or possibly the Bishop of Carthage) it was intended to be extremely insulting.

It was really not until the 15th century Renaissance that the term was used of the Pope, and not published or claimed as an official title.

In December 2012 Pope Benedict XVI used @pontifex as a twitter handle and Pope Francis I has continued that usage.

Any claim that there is some clandestine unity between Roman Emperors and Bishops of Rome is fanciful at best.

 

[The Liturgist]

It was really not until the 15th century Renaissance that the term was used of the Pope, and not published or claimed as an official title.

That’s actually not quite a certainty. Archbishop Leo I did claim the title when he came to power, according to several sources Ive read including the current Encyclopedia Brittanica. A few people say the first Roman Bishop to be styled Pope, Pope Damasus, also adopted the title Pontifex Maximus, but I doubt it strongly.

 

[Hmm]

... that this will combine with the increasingly dynamic and vibrant Traditional Latin Mass community that one finds on websites like New Liturgical Movement and Rorate Caeli, to keep things as stable as possible until there is a new pope, and then we simply have to pray the new pope is of a more traditional disposition.
....

Pope Francis with his Amazonian synod has seemingly gotten away with things.

Forgive me if I'm not reading this right, but are you in favour of a return to the Latin mass? To effectively spread the gospel, it seems a given that this would be in a language that people understand.

Also, your phrase "Amazonian synod" left a bad taste in my mouth. Presumably by
”Amazonian” you mean Brazilian but, anyway, why would you denigrate a synod because of it's ethnic and racial mix?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Forgive me if I'm not reading this right, but are you in favour of a return to the Latin mass? To effectively spread the gospel, it seems a given that this would be in a language that people understand.

Also, your phrase "Amazonian synod" left a bad taste in my mouth. Presumably by
”Amazonian” you mean Brazilian but, anyway, why would you denigrate a synod because of it's ethnic and racial mix?

It's an official name, not something our friend The Liturgist thought up: http://www.synod.va/content/sinodoa...working-document-for-the-synod-of-bishops.pdf

 

[Hmm]

Ah, my bad! Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Forgive me if I'm not reading this right, but are you in favour of a return to the Latin mass? To effectively spread the gospel, it seems a given that this would be in a language that people understand.

Also, your phrase "Amazonian synod" left a bad taste in my mouth. Presumably by
”Amazonian” you mean Brazilian but, anyway, why would you denigrate a synod because of it's ethnic and racial mix?

The Latin Mass has never left, though it has certainly gone out of favor. For me, personally, I know the Mass, and so hearing it in Latin makes me pay attention to what's really happening there. Don't you know they still sing operas in the native language? And people still go!
It was called Pan-Amazonian by the Church, so what of it? It was held in Brazil and dominated by Brazil, but there were other South American representatives. And it's not the racial mix that was at issue, but what they decided.

 

[Hazelelponi]

If the Papacy really is an innovation of the Roman Catholic Church, when did it begin? Could it have been during the oft-hated Medieval Catholic Church, when corrupt bishops decided to name a pope? No, it couldn't have been, if the Great Schism of 1054 (and tensions beginning much earlier) were primarily over the role of the Pope in the Church.

So the Catholic Church upholds that Peter was the first pope, and thus receives a lot of vicious attacks from Protestants who claim that "claiming" Peter as the first pope is a terrible thing for Catholics to do. But if he wasn't the first pope, who was? And how can Protestant Christians deny Peter as the first Pope, when Martin Luther himself described the Roman Catholic Church as "St. Peter's Church" in his 95 theses?

Included below is a link to many Church fathers discussing the issue of St. Peter as the first Pope, and I thought one quote was particularly noteworthy:


Origins of Peter as Pope — Church Fathers
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Peter was a disciple of Christ and an Apostle... not a pope.

No one was the first pope except for the first RCC or whatever guy who declared himself one.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Peter was a disciple of Christ and an Apostle... not a pope.

No one was the first pope except for the first RCC or whatever guy who declared himself one.

There's a difference between the office and the title. Jesus made Peter the head of His Church after Jesus ascended into heaven. Regarding what people called the Pope, they called him "Papa", "Pope".
So your statement that "No one was the first pope except for the first RCC or whatever guy who declared himself one." is very incorrect. No pope declared himself Pope. Others did. And through at least half of Church history, those who were papabili didn't want to be Pope. In the early years, it was an almost certain death sentence. Later on, they had the Muslims, Vandals, Goths, Magyars, Vikings and Huns to deal with. More modern-ly, it's a lot of responsibility. Imagine, you are ultimately responsible for every lost soul during your reign....that's what the shepherd of the Church is responsible for.

 

[Hmm]

For me, personally, I know the Mass, and so hearing it in Latin makes me pay attention to what's really happening there. Don't you know they still sing operas in the native language?

People go to an opera and to church with different purposes and it would possibly help in learning about God if the service was in a language you can understand. Glad you're personally okay with Latin though, that's a relief

It was called Pan-Amazonian by the Church, so what of it?

As I already indicated, I didn't realise it was a term used by the church.

 

[Philip_B]

I grew up thinking that the gold standard was worship in the vulgar tongue (the language of the people). When I was in Papua New Guinea I experienced worship in a local language, and it was truly liberating to be set free from concentrating on the words and simply being embraced by worship. The true language of the Eucharist is of course bread and wine, and I certainly knew what was going on, but I did realise that it was a bit silly to expect everyone to understand every word. As a result I developed a better understanding of worship, and I think it would be a shame if the RCC let it go entirely. That is not to say that there is not value in common tongue liturgy, there is, and it is probably to normative experience.

The fundamental truth is that we don't go to mass to hear the words, but rather to encounter Jesus.

 

[Hmm]

I've been to services given in languages I didn't understand and I agree that it was liberating in the sense that it was easier focus on other aspects of the service or on my own thought rather than the words. However, if every service I had ever been too or every book I'd ever read was on words I couldn't understand I think it would be a different matter!

Part of encountering Jesus is to understand something about Him for the revelation given to is in the Bible and from other people's personal experience of God and this can only be communicated to us in languages we can understand. This includes the languages of music and art. There is beauty in the Latin language and this is great in music but probably not so great in a sermon.

 

[prodromos]

I grew up thinking that the gold standard was worship in the vulgar tongue (the language of the people). When I was in Papua New Guinea I experienced worship in a local language, and it was truly liberating to be set free from concentrating on the words and simply being embraced by worship. The true language of the Eucharist is of course bread and wine, and I certainly knew what was going on, but I did realise that it was a bit silly to expect everyone to understand every word. As a result I developed a better understanding of worship, and I think it would be a shame if the RCC let it go entirely. That is not to say that there is not value in common tongue liturgy, there is, and it is probably to normative experience.

The fundamental truth is that we don't go to mass to hear the words, but rather to encounter Jesus.

During your time in Papua New Guinea, you didn't by any chance make the acquaintance of an Anglican missionary who is now the priestmonk of a Russian Orthodox skete on the Georges River near Campbelltown? Now goes by the name of Fr Joachim.
I'm afraid I don't know what his name was before his tonsure and ordination. Absolutely wonderful man!

 

[Hazelelponi]

Jesus made Peter the head of His Church after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Jesus never made Peter the head of the church. Christ is our head. Jesus made Peter and the other Apostles (as teachers) the foundation upon which the church was built.

Some guy in Rome, who doesn't speak my language, who presumes to take the place of the Christ (whether at others behest or not), demands others call him what has been forbidden in scripture to call any man, has nothing to with being foundational to my faith, and he'll never be the head of it... that position is Christ alone.

 

[Victor in Christ]

When we're on the subject of languages this reminds me of the day of Pentecost where the disciples became Apostles. They were able to spread the Gospel in the languages and even in the dialects of all the peoples in Jerusalem. We only can marvel at the gift Christ gave them through the holy spirit to spread the Gospel. Truly Amazing !!! how powerful our Lord and saviour is.

The gift of tongues

 

[Root of Jesse]

People go to an opera and to church with different purposes and it would possibly help in learning about God if the service was in a language you can understand. Glad you're personally okay with Latin though, that's a relief

Well, it is in the vernacular in most places. But I enjoy a TLM sometimes. It's a special treat. The point I was making about opera is that it is normally sung in the original language, and people go. It helps to know what's going on if you don't understand the language. Same thing with the Mass.

As I already indicated, I didn't realise it was a term used by the church.

Yes, I saw that. But even were it not what the Church called it, the term is not a perjorative.

 

[Victor in Christ]

If Peter wasn't the first pope, who was?

Don't care. Christ is the rock

 

[Root of Jesse]

If Peter wasn't the first pope, who was?

Don't care. Christ is the rock

If you didn't care, why bother. Of course, Christ is the rock, but he's also the Lamb, the Alpha and Omega, and other things. But Christ named Simon bar Jonah Peter, which means Rock, and told him "Upon this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.".

 

[Root of Jesse]

Jesus never made Peter the head of the church. Christ is our head. Jesus made Peter and the other Apostles (as teachers) the foundation upon which the church was built.

By renaming Simon (as God renamed Abram), he declared Simon's purpose, to lead the Church.
Of course, Christ is our head, Peter doesn't replace him, he represents him as the visible head of the Church. When Jesus renamed Simon Peter, he was speaking to him singularly. The other apostles, absolutely, had most of the same responsibilities.

Some guy in Rome, who doesn't speak my language, who presumes to take the place of the Christ (whether at others behest or not), demands others call him what has been forbidden in scripture to call any man, has nothing to with being foundational to my faith, and he'll never be the head of it... that position is Christ alone.

Again, saying he takes the place of Christ is a misunderstanding. He represents Christ, that's why he is the Vicar of Christ. What do you mean "demands others call him what has been forbidden in scripture to call any man"? And if it wasn't for Peter and the apostles, you wouldn't have a foundation to your faith. And the pope is the head of the Christian church, whether you listen to him, or not, just as a president is the POTUS whether you voted for him or not.

 

[Root of Jesse]

When we're on the subject of languages this reminds me of the day of Pentecost where the disciples became Apostles. They were able to spread the Gospel in the languages and even in the dialects of all the peoples in Jerusalem. We only can marvel at the gift Christ gave them through the holy spirit to spread the Gospel. Truly Amazing !!! how powerful our Lord and saviour is.

The gift of tongues

I disagree that the disciples became apostles at Pentecost. Scripture records "Peter and the other apostles" many times. And then there were disciples, who were not the core group of 12.