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

[Albion]

I think I understood your point; pope is the Latinized "papa" from the Greek word πάππας (pappa) which means "father." It was a term of endearment/respect for the Bishop in Rome before it became "The Pope" as an official title of an office. Your comment was to the latter.

Peter was the Bishop in Antioch prior to Rome.

Actually, my comment was not to that latter point. The fact that the word itself comes from the word for Father is a side issue for me and, I think, for this discussion as well.

The point I was speaking about concerned the office--not as bishop of Rome or Antioch, but the Papacy. It is about one bishop being the head of all other bishops as it is in the Roman Catholic Church, of him being the supposed Christ-designated ruler of his church universal with all the jurisdiction, etc. that goes with it.

He is, of course, called by many titles, although we all most often simply say Pope.

 

[FenderTL5]

Actually, my comment was not to that latter point..

The point I was speaking about concerned the office--not as bishop of Rome or Antioch, but the Papacy...

then it was to the latter.

 

[Albion]

Friend, almost your whole post was about the word Pope and its origin and meaning. If that was what you referred to as "the latter" (as it seemed to me to be), then my point was something else.

In any case, the reply I gave in post 21 was an attempt to be clear about what my point actually had been.

 

[mark kennedy]

St. Peter was bishop of Antioch first, wasn't he?

Primacy was assigned to Rome due to its importance as capitol city, wasn't it?

There is no doubt of a role of primacy assigned when all bishops convened (though St. James presided over the first Council because it took place in Jerusalem, where he was bishop). Someone has to call the meeting to order. But that never meant supreme authority or infallibility. St. Paul withstood St. Peter "to his face" because he was clearly wrong in the Judaizing scandal. And why call a council at all (as the Church has always done since the book of Acts) if supreme authority was supposed to rest in a human individual? Why not just ask the "pope" what to do, if such authority existed?

Because no mortal man is the head of the Church. That head is Jesus Christ. And if we believe His promise that the Holy Spirit would lead His Church into all truth, we can trust those councils that included any and all bishops, as Christianity did for centuries before major schisms.

This one puzzles me, Peter and the Apostles excluding Paul spent most of the early years following Jesus ascension in Jerusalem. Peter did make his way to Rome eventually where he died a martyrs death but Rome has him there in like 33 AD. The Jerusalem Council was in 39AD, Peter is still in Jerusalem. He was obviously a leader among the Apostles and Jesus did focus on him somewhat. But I'm not sure you will get a presiding bishop or Pope from the New Testament witness. I certainly have some reservations about Peter being in Rome in 33 AD.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I've never really understood how someone can be first if all are truly equal. Another phrase that seems logically inconsistent is "The pope has a position of primacy, not supremacy." I suppose one could make the case that primacy is a referral to time of establishment; but Eusebius says that Peter was Bishop of Antioch before Rome, so that rules out a historical primacy. Another meaning might be, as I have heard said, he has a primacy of honor; but wouldn't that imply that other bishops are required to treat the Pope with more honor than they do other bishops. It is such a nebulous concept and yet it has stood in the divide between us for centuries. Perhaps it is time we start looking at this dispassionately and actually deriving how this would work; otherwise we let fuzzy words build hard walls.

He sat in a place of honor. But he was not in a place of supremacy or authority over other Bishoprics. All bishops were equal. BTW, there are many other issues other than this that divide us.

 

[FenderTL5]

Friend, almost your whole post was about the word Pope and its origin and meaning. If that was what you referred to as "the latter" (as it seemed to me to be), then my point was something else.

In any case, the reply I gave in post 21 was an attempt to be clear about what my point actually had been.

That would have been the former.
You see, when you place two items in a comment, the first part is the former and the last part is the latter. The former, was the origin of the word. The latter was the "office" and title which it became. We even used the exact same verbiage.
I said, "..it became "The Pope" as an official title of an office.."
you said, "..The point I was speaking about concerned the office.."
You argue even when agreed with.

 

[Resha Caner]

I've never really understood how someone can be first if all are truly equal.

I agree. That phrase has always seemed politically motivated to me rather than based on any logical or organizational principle. But I'm sure someun'll 'splain it to us.

Regardless, the question is a good one. It serves to separate those who see history as black & white - as subject to Forms - from those who see it as a confused tapestry of many threads.

 

[tz620q]

This one puzzles me, Peter and the Apostles excluding Paul spent most of the early years following Jesus ascension in Jerusalem. Peter did make his way to Rome eventually where he died a martyrs death but Rome has him there in like 33 AD. The Jerusalem Council was in 39AD, Peter is still in Jerusalem. He was obviously a leader among the Apostles and Jesus did focus on him somewhat. But I'm not sure you will get a presiding bishop or Pope from the New Testament witness. I certainly have some reservations about Peter being in Rome in 33 AD.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I think that to uncover this historically requires one to admit that the historical narrative in the Bible is really "The Story of Paul" and does not really follow the other apostles very well. We see Peter in Jerusalem in 33 AD and I think any historically truthful Catholic will admit that. He then journeys to Samaria and Antioch; but have no real feel on whether he visited there only or was staying in those areas while establishing Christian communities. One early historical record is the "De Viris Illustribus".
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm
This is credited to Jerome but is probably a compilation of various hagiographies written by previous historians. The entry on Peter reads
"1. Simon Peter
Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion — the believers in circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia — pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord. He wrote two epistles which are called Catholic, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him. Then too the Gospel according to Mark, who was his disciple and interpreter, is ascribed to him. On the other hand, the books, of which one is entitled his Acts, another his Gospel, a third his Preaching, a fourth his Revelation, a fifth his Judgment are rejected as apocryphal.

Buried at Rome in the Vatican near the triumphal way he is venerated by the whole world."

Claudius was Emperor of Rome from 41 to 54 AD with Nero following. So the second year of Claudius would be roughly 42,43 AD. That would put Peter's martyrdom in the year 67,68 AD, which doesn't quite work out since the Great Fire in Rome was in 64 AD and by early 68 AD Nero was fighting rebellion and committing suicide in June of that year. Still it is a better chronology than most, since when Peter escapes Herod in Jerusalem, he is said to have gone to another place, which could have been Rome. This would work if he was in Antioch, came to Jerusalem, was imprisoned and decided on escaping to not go back to Antioch.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The papacy was an evolving institution during the entire medieval period, that makes a "first pope" a difficult question to answer. There had always been a bishop of Rome since St. Peter, so the question of "first pope" tends to be the question of when did the bishop of Rome see himself as having some kind of total primacy over the rest of the bishops of the Church. Clearly by the time of the Great Schism that view existed, as the bishop of Rome clearly thought he had the authority to modify the wording of the Nicene Creed without the consent of the Church through her bishops together in council; and the bishop of Rome sought to make his case by arguing from the Donation of Constantine, a medieval forgery.

If I had to hazard a guess, we really don't see the papacy, as such, until probably the Byzantine/post-Byzantine period (the period in which the bishop of Rome required the Byzantine Emperor's approval for consecration). In the post-Byzantine period the bishop of Rome became independent from Byzantium by an effective allegiance with the Franks.

Like most things in history, I suspect the answer is messy and complicated. Any person we name is likely going to be somewhat arbitrary.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Phil 1:21]

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.

To be honest I don't think most Protestants care one way or the other. Aside from the occasional post on this site, I've never heard a Protestant make any such claim.

 

[Albion]

The papacy was an evolving institution during the entire medieval period, that makes a "first pope" a difficult question to answer. There had always been a bishop of Rome since St. Peter, so the question of "first pope" tends to be the question of when did the bishop of Rome see himself as having some kind of total primacy over the rest of the bishops of the Church.

On the contrary, I believe it matters more when the rest of the Church saw the Bishop of Rome as having some kind of primacy of jurisdiction over the other bishops and their dioceses.

The claims of the bishops of Rome come mainly from the importance of the city of Rome, so the fact that the bishop should take that fact and run with it doesn't do much of anything to establish who the first real Pope, as Pope, actually was.

 

[FireDragon76]

The office of the Papacy evolved or developed, with the western church gradually centralizing in Rome. Alot of stories and forgeries (like the Donation of Constantine) became accepted and it helped create the the mythos of Rome. It was a natural center for a new, religious empire of "Christendom" in the West, with all its weak temporal powers that could not unify a civilization.

Luther at the time of the 95 Theses was still loyal to the Pope, because he hadn't been yet repudiated. He had no intention, initially, of attacking the Papacy. Later, his attitude towards the Papacy is similar to the Sedevacantists today, that the Pope was anti-Christ, and therefore there was no real Pope.

 

[Albion]

I agree with you, Phil.

 

[JoeP222w]

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
“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]).

The Bible never denotes a "Pope" [Holy Father], nor commands any sinful man to be the head of the church. Jesus Christ is the one and only head of the church. There is no indication that Peter ever considered himself to be "Pope".

Martin Luther was not infallible. Nor any other church father.

 

[Newtheran]

Linus. Eusebius cites Linus as "the first to receive the episcopate of the church at Rome" and The Apostolic Constitutions denote that Linus, who was consecrated by Paul, was the first bishop of Rome and was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained and consecrated by Peter.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Rather than reinvent the wheel, I've just posted a summary of the Catholic claim about Peter being the first "Pope" from the following site -

Fr. William Saunders

Christ was setting up an office, and giving it authority. It wasn't just done for Peter's benefit. The binding and loosing which would be bound in heaven and earth wasn't just for Peter - Christ, the Son of God, was setting up a supreme office of the church for the centuries and millenia to come, and this authority was given long before a Bible graced anybody's book shelf.

Or as my old pastor commented, "What's the use of having a church if you don't give it any authority?".

 

[Albion]

Linus. Eusebius cites Linus as "the first to receive the episcopate of the church at Rome" and The Apostolic Constitutions denote that Linus, who was consecrated by Paul, was the first bishop of Rome and was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained and consecrated by Peter.

That would make him the first bishop raised to the episcopate in Rome; it would not make him a Pope unless we go with the Roman Catholic theory that Peter was the first Pope without anyone realizing it, in which case it would be Peter and not Linus who was first.

 

[Newtheran]

That would make him the first bishop raised to the episcopate in Rome; it would not make him a Pope unless we go with the Roman Catholic theory that Peter was the first Pope without anyone realizing it, in which case it would be Peter and not Linus who was first.

Good point, I guess the correct historical term would be first bishop of Rome, but where Roman Catholics tend to equate the two, it would make Linus the first "pope".

 

[Bob Crowley]

I lifted this definition from the online Britannica site - pope | Definition, Title, & List of Popes

Pope, (Latin papa, from Greek pappas, “father”), the title, since about the 9th century, of the bishop of Rome, the head of the Roman Catholic Church. It was formerly given, especially from the 3rd to the 5th century, to any bishop and sometimes to simple priests as an ecclesiasticaltitle expressing affectionate respect. In Eastern Orthodox churches, it is still used for the patriarch of Alexandria and for Orthodox priests. (See also papacy.)

If we're going to nit-pick, Peter was not called a Pope, since apparently the earliest usage of the term dates back to about the 3rd century, as shown above.

The real issue is whether the Bishop of Rome, following on from Peter's domicile in that office, takes on the role of Peter as the "Rock", and if he has the power to bind and loose.

I think he does, so in that sense, the office of Pope, as it's come to be known over the centuries, inherits the role and authority that was given to Peter, by Christ's direct statement. Christ was setting up an office with power, not instigating a niggling bunfight over terminology.

 

[prodromos]

I think he does, so in that sense, the office of Pope, as it's come to be known over the centuries, inherits the role and authority that was given to Peter, by Christ's direct statement. Christ was setting up an office with power, not instigating a niggling bunfight over terminology.

Every bishop does, not just the bishop of what used the be the most important city in the Roman Empire.