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

[Albion]

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.

It doesn't matter that Christ made a little joke on Peters name; and all the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose.

The point here is not that Jesus could have created a religious monarchy to lead his church, but whether or not he did so. IF he had chosen to do that, you would think that the Church itself would have known of it before 300 years had passed!

 

[Aspect]

Even the Greek Orthodox Church admits St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

Greek liturgical offices commemorate St. Peter’s episcopate in Rome. Texts for the feast of St. Peter’s chains, on January 16, proclaim:
"Supreme foundation of the apostles, You left all things, following the Master, Crying out to him, “With thee I shall die, So as to live the life of the blessed.” And you became the first bishop of Rome, Foundation and pillar of the most orthodox of cities, and firmament of the Church of Christ. And the gates of hell shall not shake it, As Christ proclaimed." [Ed. J.B. Pitra. Hymnographie de l’Eglise Grècque, Rome 1867, LVII].

 

[Albion]

Even the Greek Orthodox Church admits St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

That is generally agreed to by Christians of whatever denomination. But it wasn't the question of this thread.

So...who was the first POPE? Leo the Great is the most likely or perhaps another of the bishops of Rome who came just before his time.That's several hundred years after Peter.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Even the Greek Orthodox Church admits St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

Greek liturgical offices commemorate St. Peter’s episcopate in Rome. Texts for the feast of St. Peter’s chains, on January 16, proclaim:
"Supreme foundation of the apostles, You left all things, following the Master, Crying out to him, “With thee I shall die, So as to live the life of the blessed.” And you became the first bishop of Rome, Foundation and pillar of the most orthodox of cities, and firmament of the Church of Christ. And the gates of hell shall not shake it, As Christ proclaimed." [Ed. J.B. Pitra. Hymnographie de l’Eglise Grècque, Rome 1867, LVII].

St. Peter was also the first bishop of Antioch, and the bishops of the holy See of Antioch are just as much the successors of St. Peter as the bishops of Rome.

That Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and that the bishops of Rome sit in St. Peter's chair that is disputed; it is the unique claims to power and primacy by the Pope in Rome that are under dispute. That is, the "papacy" as a particular institution, being set above and over the fraternity of bishops and the Church Catholic--that's where debate and dispute resides.

Yes, the Pope in Rome sits in the chair of St. Peter. But so does the bishop of Antioch. And all the ancient and holy sees of the Church Catholic are of equal apostolic pedigree. The authority of the Church does not come from Christ to Peter, and Peter to Rome, and then Rome to the Church. The authority of the Church comes from Christ to the Church, and is exercised by her ministers, the bishops and presbyters called and ordained for that good purpose.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[~Anastasia~]

From an Orthodox perspective (since you brought that up) ... St. Peter was first among the Twelve. And at one time Rome was the seat of primacy, by virtue of being a sort of capital city.

But that doesn’t mean that we agree with the claims that Catholicism ascribes to “the Papacy”.

From an Orthodox perspective, the Bishop of Rome was “first among equals”. Every other Bishop was equally a Bishop. All had an equal vote in matters that come down to voting.

And in a council meeting somewhere other than Rome, the presiding bishop would be the local bishop. The first council is recounted in the Book of Acts, where St. James as the bishop in Jerusalem (the location of the council) actually presided.

From an Orthodox point of view, Christ is the head of the Church. We have no need of a man to take His place. We do not consider any person to be infallible in any sense - only God is infallible. And we do not have any central authority in one person who is able to dictate to others. As a matter of fact, should the Ecumenical Patriarch (our current “first among equals now that Rome is no longer with us) ... should the EP err and go against what the Church has taught in the past, the most humble layman has the “authority” to correct him, using that which was handed down from the Apostles and taught in all times in all places (at least among the Orthodox). That is our authority, with Scripture as the central part.

 

[Aspect]

That is generally agreed to by Christians of whatever denomination. But it wasn't the question of this thread.

So...who was the first POPE? Leo the Great is the most likely or perhaps another of the bishops of Rome who came just before his time.That's several hundred years after Peter.

It depends on the definition of "pope." If one understands it to mean bishop of Rome, then St. Peter was first pope.

 

[Aspect]

St. Peter was also the first bishop of Antioch, and the bishops of the holy See of Antioch are just as much the successors of St. Peter as the bishops of Rome.

That Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and that the bishops of Rome sit in St. Peter's chair that is disputed; it is the unique claims to power and primacy by the Pope in Rome that are under dispute. That is, the "papacy" as a particular institution, being set above and over the fraternity of bishops and the Church Catholic--that's where debate and dispute resides.

Yes, the Pope in Rome sits in the chair of St. Peter. But so does the bishop of Antioch. And all the ancient and holy sees of the Church Catholic are of equal apostolic pedigree. The authority of the Church does not come from Christ to Peter, and Peter to Rome, and then Rome to the Church. The authority of the Church comes from Christ to the Church, and is exercised by her ministers, the bishops and presbyters called and ordained for that good purpose.-CryptoLutheran

I have to disagree with several of your comments. Yes, Peter was bishop of Antioch, but the fathers viewed Rome as superior, because that is where Peter ended his life --in the see of Rome, which he co-founded with St. Paul.

If anyone disputes the fact St. Peter was first bishop of Rome, then they are either ignorant of the historical and patristic record, or they are suppressing it. I already quoted the Greek liturgical office. St. Irenaeus said SS. Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome [See PG 7: 848-9].

Apostolic sees are equal in the sense of being founded by apostles, but Rome was always distinguished and given the primacy because of Peter, and the keys he received from Christ.

 

[dzheremi]

Historically speaking, the first Christian bishop to be honored with the honorific "Pope" was HH St. Heraclas, the thirteenth bishop of the See of St. Mark in Alexandria, Egypt. He was the patriarch of Alexandria from 232 to 248, and sometime after his death HH St. Dionysius, bishop of Rome (d. 268) wrote in a letter to Philemon the following (as preserved in Eusebius' Church History, book VII):

τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον.
[I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed Pope, Heraclas.]

Sorry, Rome-watchers!

 

[Aspect]

From an Orthodox point of view, Christ is the head of the Church. We have no need of a man to take His place.

You can have a head of a local parish (a priest) and a head of a diocese (a bishop), but that doesn't detract from the fact Christ is still head of the Church. Since local parishes can have a head, then there is no reason why the universal Church can't have a head.

At the Council of Chalcedon the Roman legate Paschasinus stood and made this announcement: "We have in our hands orders from the most blessed and apostolic pope of the city of Rome, which is head of all the churches, by which his apostleship has deigned to command that Dioscorus is not to sit in the council. It is necessary for us to observe this... Either he is to go out, or we leave." [ACO II, Vol. 3, Pt. 1, 40].

Do you agree? If not, why?

 

[Aspect]

Historically speaking, the first Christian bishop to be honored with the honorific "Pope" was HH St. Heraclas, the thirteenth bishop of the See of St. Mark in Alexandria, Egypt. He was the patriarch of Alexandria from 232 to 248, and sometime after his death HH St. Dionysius, bishop of Rome (d. 268) wrote in a letter to Philemon the following (as preserved in Eusebius' Church History, book VII):

τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον.
[I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed Pope, Heraclas.]

Sorry, Rome-watchers!

I agree that other bishops were called "pope." The question here is not about a title, but about authority.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Saint Peter was The Bishop of Antioch before he was The Bishop of Rome :


Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America

List of Patriarchs of Antioch before 518 - Wikipedia

List of Patriarchs of Antioch - OrthodoxWiki


.

 

[Aspect]

Saint Peter was The Bishop of Antioch before he was The Bishop of Rome :


Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America

List of Patriarchs of Antioch before 518 - Wikipedia

List of Patriarchs of Antioch - OrthodoxWiki

St. Peter founded the church in Antioch, but the keys and authority were only given to his successors in Rome, because he died there. Antioch is nothing special. The Decree of Pope Damasus (382):

"Likewise it is decreed: ...we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all Catholic churches throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless the holy Roman Church has been set before the other churches not by any synodical decrees but by the evangelical voice of our Lord and Savior, saying: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything of the kind. The second see was consecrated at Alexandria, in the name of Blessed Peter, by his disciple the evangelist Mark, and he, having been sent by St. Peter into Egypt, preached the word of truth and consummated a glorious martyrdom. The third see [of the most blessed apostle Peter] is at Antioch, which is considered honorable because he lived there before he came to Rome, and there the name of the new nation of Christians first arose." [PL 13: 374-6].

 

[prodromos]

It depends on the definition of "pope." If one understands it to mean bishop of Rome, then St. Peter was first pope.

I didn't know Shenouda III was bishop of Rome? You learn something new every day!

 

[Aspect]

I didn't know Shenouda III was bishop of Rome? You learn something new every day!

That's not what I said. The term "pope" was a general term for bishops at one time. I never said Shenouda was bishop of Rome.

 

[Aspect]

Pope Gregory proclaims that the Apostolic See of Rome is “head of all the churches.” [Epp. XIII, 45. PL 77, 1298].

Pope Gregory affirmed that the Church of Constantinople was subject to the Apostolic See, writing:

"For with regard to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? The most pious lord, the emperor, and our brother, the bishop of the same city, also profess this assiduously. [Epp. IX, 12. PL 77, 957-8].

 

[prodromos]

Apostolic sees are equal in the sense of being founded by apostles, but Rome was always distinguished and given the primacy because of Peter, and the keys he received from Christ.

Rome was distinguished, and rightly so because in the first few centuries, becoming bishop of Rome was a guaranteed martyrdom, so only those Christians of the highest calibre accepted the role.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Aspect thanks for the quotes.

Can you please post links so I can check them out ?

.

 

[prodromos]

That's not what I said.

It pretty much is.

The term "pope" was a general term for bishops at one time.

You did not say this above.

I never said Shenouda was bishop of Rome.

No you didn't, it was simply the logical conclusion of what you did say.

 

[prodromos]

You can have a head of a local parish (a priest) and a head of a diocese (a bishop), but that doesn't detract from the fact Christ is still head of the Church. Since local parishes can have a head, then there is no reason why the universal Church can't have a head.

That simply does not follow. The bishop is the head of his region/town/city, he himself has no head but Christ. I suggest you read the letters of St Ignatius if you want to understand the structure of the Church

At the Council of Chalcedon the Roman legate Paschasinus stood and made this announcement: "We have in our hands orders from the most blessed and apostolic pope of the city of Rome, which is head of all the churches, by which his apostleship has deigned to command that Dioscorus is not to sit in the council. It is necessary for us to observe this... Either he is to go out, or we leave." [ACO II, Vol. 3, Pt. 1, 40].

Do you agree? If not, why?

More to the point, did the bishops at the Council of Chalcedon agree? Apparently not.

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave.

The most glorious judges and the full senate said: What special charge do you prefer against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus?

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said: Since he has come, it is necessary that objection be made to him.

The most glorious judges and the whole senate said: In accordance with what has been said, let the charge under which he lies, be specifically made.

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.

Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop, who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.

The most glorious judges and the full senate, said: It is proper that you should set forth specifically in what he hath gone astray. Lucentius, the venerable bishop and holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We will not suffer so great a wrong to be done us and you, as that he who is come to be judged should sit down [as one to give judgment]. The glorious judges and the whole senate said: If you hold the office of judge, you ought not to defend yourself as if you were to be judged.

And when Dioscorus the most religious bishop of Alexandria at the bidding of the most glorious judges and of the sacred assembly had sat down in the midst, and the most reverend Roman bishops also had sat down in their proper places, and kept silence, Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of the city of Dorylaeum, stepping into the midst, said:

[he then presented a petition, and the Acts of the Latrocinium were read. Also the Acts of the council of Constantinople under Flavian against Eutyches.]

And when they were read, the most glorious judges and immense assembly said: What do the most reverend bishops of the present holy synod say? When he thus expounded the faith did Flavian, of holy memory, preserve, the orthodox and catholic religion, or did he in any respect err concerning it?

Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, representing the Apostolic See, said; Flavian of blessed memory hath most holily and perfectly expounded the faith. His faith and exposition agrees with the epistle of the most blessed and apostolic man, the bishop of Rome.

Anatolius the most reverend archbishop of Constantinople said; The blessed Flavian hath beautifully and orthodoxly set forth the faith of our fathers.

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop, and legate of the Apostolic See, said; Since the faith of Flavian of blessed memory agrees with the Apostolic See and the tradition of the fathers it is just that the sentence by which he was condemned by the heretics should be turned back upon them by this most holy synod.

Maximus the most reverend bishop of Antioch in Syria, said: Archbishop Flavian of blessed memory hath set forth the faith orthodoxly and in accordance with the most beloved-of-God and most holy Archbishop Leo. And this we all receive with zeal.

Thalassius, the most reverend bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia said; Flavian of blessed memory hath spoken in accordance with Cyril of blessed memory.

[And so, one after another, the bishops expressed their opinions. The reading of the acts of the Council of Constantinople was then continued.]

And at this point of the reading, Dioscorus, the most reverend Archbishop of Alexandria said, I receive "the of two;" "the two" I do not receive ( to ek duo dekomai to duo , ou dekomai ). I am forced to be impudent, but the matter is one which touches my soul.

[After a few remarks the reading was continued and the rest of the acts of the Latrocinium of Ephesus completed. The judges then postponed to the morrow the setting forth a decree on the faith but intimated that Dioscorus and his associates should suffer the punishment to which they unjustly sentenced Flavian. This met with the approval of all the bishops except those of Illyrica who said: "We all have erred, let us all be pardoned."]

The most glorious judges and the whole senate said; Let each one of the most reverend bishops of the present synod, hasten to set forth how he believes, writing without any fear, but placing the fear of God before his eyes; knowing that our most divine and pious lord believes according to the ecthesis of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers at Nice, and according to the ecthesis of the one hundred and fifty after them, and according to the Canonical epistles and ectheses of the holy fathers Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, and according to the two canonical epistles of Cyril, which were confirmed and published in the first Council of Ephesus, nor does he in any point depart from the faith of the same. For the most reverend archbishop of Old Rome, Leo, appears to have sent a letter to Flavian of blessed memory, with reference to Eutyches's unbelieving doubt which was springing up against the Catholic Church.​

 

[prodromos]

I predict that the above will be ignored and instead there will be more copy/paste quotes without any context.