Peter the First Pope?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

We disagree whether Peter is pope due to the language diferences ie or the very thought of one man being infallible etc etc.

Some thoughts....


1. God's Holy Scriptures don't record such. In fact, it says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the Bishop of Rome or the Vicar of Christ or the Roman Catholic denomination or the magisterium thereof. Nope. So, we don't have God's Holy Word on this.


2. I'm not the expert on early Christianity that some are here, but the "evidence" that has been presented to me is not contemporary. The earliest things I've seen SAY that Peter was in Rome. Okay. Then a bit later that he was a bishop in Rome. Okay. And CENTURIES later, that he was a Pope. Since we have NOTHING in Scripture about this, all we have to go by is objective contemporary history form the 60's.


3. Such objective history, IMHO, suggests that it's likely Peter was in Rome before he died in 67. Probably barely, JUST before. This must have been pretty late and not considered very significant because there's no mention of it in Acts which was written somewhere between 63-65 AD. Some people see 1 Peter 5:13 as an indication that he was writing from Rome, which must have been around 65-67 AD (totally unrecorded in Scripture - surpremely odd if this is SOOOOO extremely critical, the very basis of the RCC). So, 1 Peter 5:13 MIGHT be an indication for this brief late presense in Rome, it's hardly "proof," I see it as likely. I wouldn't make dogma on that, but I"m cool with "likely." And again, it's for a PRESENCE there, not being a "Pope."


4. Concluding that Peter was IN Rome is hardly confirmation that he was a Pope!!!!!! That's a HUGE leap!!!!! One would need to historically verify that in the 60's, all Christians regarded Peter as Infallible, the sole "vicar of Christ," NOT "first among equals" but superior to all others in ultimate authority. I've never seen anything from the 60's that remotely suggests that. Such claims come from MUCH later; it appears to be retroactive spinning, not historical verification.



Thank you!


Pax!



- Josiah



.

 

[eoe]

Yes, but to say that the Bible doesn't have the full and complete truth??? That's outrageous.

The Bible itself says this.

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Bible does not contain everything.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

We are to keep what is written as well as oral tradition.


AKA - the Bible is not complete. What it does contain is truth but it does not have everything. Are you telling me that the things that Jesus did that are not recorded (the world could not contain the books) were false?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Bible itself says this.
Bible does not contain everything.
We are to keep what is written as well as oral tradition.

Nope.

The Gospel of John says that not everything Jesus DID is recorded.

IMHO, it's a HUGE and incredible LEAP to therefore conclude that Jesus taught all kinds of dogmas that God forgot to include in His Holy Scriptures and therefore gave them instead to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic denomination (or the LDS as they claim the same thing), and the RCC could reveal and infallibly interpret this dogmas God forgot to put into His Holy Scirptures whenever and however it chooses. That just seems like an unreasonable leap IMHO. Just MY conclusion there.

Again, the Bible says that not everything Jesus DID is recorded. It does NOT say that there are dogmas left out of Holy Scripture. Apples and oranges, IMHO.


But we likely disagree.



Pax!


- Josiah

 

[Rick Otto]

"AKA - the Bible is not complete. What it does contain is truth but it does not have everything. Are you telling me that the things that Jesus did that are not recorded (the world could not contain the books) were false?"

>>>You're being told that the essential truths of Christian faith, what is necessary to know, is there.

Enough with spastic equivocating. The Bible is complete in esssentials.
Deal with epistemaniac's points of contention on his level of presentation, or admit defeat if only by your silence.

 

[hsilgne]

Hardly.

The early church fathers do NOT point to Peter as being the head of the church at Rome.

What about these guys? Their writings do point to it.

Ignatius of Antioch

Dionysius of Corinth

Irenaeus

Gaius

Clement of Alexandria

Tertullian

The Little Labyrinth

usebius of Caesarea

Peter of Alexandria

Lactantius

Cyril of Jerusalem

Optatus

Epiphanius of Salamis

Pope Damasus I

Jerome

Augustine

 

[Rick Otto]

Deal with square one:

"
The Roman Catholic Apologist must also be able to address, to the satisfaction of reasonable men, the following twenty two questions:


Why do Mark (8:27-30) and Luke (9:18-21), while they also recount the Caesarea Philippi conversation between Jesus and Peter, omit all reference to that part of Jesus’ conversation which grants Peter his alleged priority over the other Apostles, the point which for Rome is the very heart and central point of our Lord’s teaching ministry?


Why does the New Testament record more of Peter’s errors after the Caesarea Philippi confession than of any other of the apostles? I am referring to (1) his satanic and `man-minding’ rejection of Jesus’ announcement that he would die, Matt 16:22-23; (2) his `leveling’ or `Arian’ comparison with Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration, Matt 17:4-5; (3) his ignorant and impetuous refusal to let Jesus wash his feet and then his self willed dictating the terms according to which Jesus would wash him, John 13:8-9; (4) his sleepiness while Jesus prayed in Gethsemane, Matt 26:36-45; (5) his precipitous use of the sword, Matt 26:51-54; (6) his prideful protestation of unfailing faithfulness and then his three denials of Jesus, recorded in all four Gospels; (7) his impulsive curiosity about John’s future, expressed no sooner than Jesus had restored him to fellowship, which netted him Christ’s stern 1thats none of your business’ John 21:21-22; and finally (8) even after Christ’s resurrection, the Spirit’s outpouring at Pentecost, and the role that he himself played in the Cornelius incident, his betrayal of the truth of the pure gospel of grace at Antioch by his compromising action called for Paul’s public rebuke in which Paul condemned him because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group, `because his actions led the other Jewish Christians at Antioch, including even Barnabas, to join him in his 1hypocricy’, and, most significantly, because he was not acting in line with the gospel (Gal 2:11-14)"

 

[Optimax]

Seems to me that:

Scripture says that the Gospel was sent by Peter to the cicumcision, which is the Jews.

The Gospel was sent by Paul to the uncircimcision, which is the rest of us.

If Peter was the first "Pope", which scripture does not confirm, then he was "Pope" to the Jew.

Gal 2:7-8
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
KJV

 

[albertmc]

What about these guys? Their writings do point to it.

Ignatius of Antioch

Dionysius of Corinth

Irenaeus

Gaius

Clement of Alexandria

Tertullian

The Little Labyrinth

usebius of Caesarea

Peter of Alexandria

Lactantius

Cyril of Jerusalem

Optatus

Epiphanius of Salamis

Pope Damasus I

Jerome

Augustine

Evidence among the Apostolic Fathers would certainly be convincing but it isn't there. Where does Ignatius of Antioch declare Peter the first pope?? He states Peter and Paul both died in Rome but Rome doesn't think Paul was pope so why does this make Peter a pope??

I have no issue with Peter dying in Rome. Enough early witnesses attest to it and, after all, he had to die somewhere and the Neronian persecution was the usually accepted period and that took place primarily in Rome, then.... Peter probably died in Rome. So???

Simple question - What is the earliest evidence that Peter was Bishop of Rome? Give quotes so we all may be enlightened.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Simple question - What is the earliest evidence that Peter was Bishop of Rome? Give quotes so we all may be enlightened.

And what is the first objective historical statement that Peter was the POPE (that's the issue of this thread) - the Infallible Vicar of Christ, not first among equals but above all in authority? Since Scripture is completely silent about this and doesn't illustrate this at all, all we have is history. So, what IS the history? What is the earliest, objective historical statement that Peter was the first POPE? What I've seen has been very UNcontemporary and far less than unbiased.

 

[Knowledge3]

The Holy See of Peter, is founded after St. Peter.

First bishop and martyr of Rome.

 

[mooduck1]

Havent read the whole thread but it is clear to me that the Naming the of the Bishop of Rome to have the Powers that he has to day was almost purely political. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there 2 CC's - Roman and easter Orthodox? Why do we Give full credit of writting the Bible to RCC?

 

[Knowledge3]

[edit]

 

[Knowledge3]

Havent read the whole thread but it is clear to me that the Naming the of the Bishop of Rome to have the Powers that he has to day was almost purely political. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there 2 CC's - Roman and easter Orthodox? Why do we Give full credit of writting the Bible to RCC?

1) Rome split from EO in the schism of 1054.

2) Rome thinks Rome is powerful enough to be the Church all by themselves!!

---
The Holy Bible is native Hebrew.

The Torah came from scribes and prophets.

Not the RCC.

 

[Ruzz]

I can see some feathers ruffled in this thread.

Personally, what it all boils down to for me,(five years ago I was a huge catholic skeptic) the reeason I believe, is because of the historical documentation that attests to it.

Could you please share that historical documentation that you found?

Okay, I don't wish to argue was Peter the first pope. That's a different subject.
However, I have found zero historical evidence of a sucession (see Acts) from Peter to Linus in Rome.

What we know is Peter and Paul went to Rome and were executed there.

What I haven't been able to find is a shred of historical evidence of Peter meeting with Linus and training Linus with all that undocumented oral tradtion. That must have taken a long time to teach. Or the ceremony of succession, who was there, who drew lots, etc. (see Acts)
What is probably the single most important aspect of a Church is silent. The very first Apostolic succession is totally silent, however every single one afterwards to present day is heavily documented.

So, I ask, what evidence do you have that proves Peter passed authority to Linus? I've asked in several forums and gotten responses from lengthy dissertations that end in circumstantial evidence to being totally ignored.

Perhaps if somone could provide this documentation, it would resolve a major issue I have with the authority of The Church.

 

[Knowledge3]

St. Peter was a fisherman.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/peters.htm

 

[racer]

Why is Peters name ALWAYS mentioned first among the Apostles?

It's not.

 

[racer]

Evidence among the Apostolic Fathers would certainly be convincing but it isn't there. Where does Ignatius of Antioch declare Peter the first pope?? He states Peter and Paul both died in Rome but Rome doesn't think Paul was pope so why does this make Peter a pope??

In fact, Ignatius states that the bishophric in Rome was passed to Linus from Peter and Paul. Were they both Popes?

 

[leothelioness]

The Bible itself says this.
Bible does not contain everything.
We are to keep what is written as well as oral tradition.


AKA - the Bible is not complete. What it does contain is truth but it does not have everything. Are you telling me that the things that Jesus did that are not recorded (the world could not contain the books) were false?

Essentially the Bible is saying that not all things which were done were recorded. But it's not saying that it doesn't contain the complete truth. To even believe such a thing is dangerous at best and foolish at worst.

 

[Trento]

Could you please share that historical documentation that you found?

Okay, I don't wish to argue was Peter the first pope. That's a different subject.
However, I have found zero historical evidence of a sucession (see Acts) from Peter to Linus in Rome.

.

For evidence of Linus see Eusebius and Poem Against Marcion below.


Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).

The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).

Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).

Hippolytus (225 AD) counts Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).


Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as "the place of Peter" (Ep ad Anton), and as "the Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Pope Cornelius).

Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope Stephen's claim to the "succession of Peter" and to the "Chair of Peter" (Ep ad Cyprian).

Eusebius (314) says that Peter was "the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years" (Chron an 44), and calls Linus "first after Peter to obtain the episcopate" (Chron an 66). He also says that Victor was "the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter" (HE III, 4).

The Council of Sardica "honors the memory of the Apostle Peter" in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).


Athanasius (340's) calls Rome the "Apostolic Throne" -- a reference to the Apostle Peter as the first bishop to occupy that throne (Hist Arian ad Monarch 35).


Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, "in which chair sat Peter himself." He also says how "Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair," which "is the first of the marks of the Church." (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).

Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as "Peter's chair" and the Roman church where "Peter, first of the Apostles, first sat" (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).


Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the "chair of Peter" and the "Apostolic chair," and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1).


Augustine (c. 400) tells us to number the bishops of Rome from the chair of Peter itself (in Ps contra Part Donat), and speaks of "the chair of the Roman church in which Peter first sat" (Contra Lit Petil).

 

[hsilgne]

It's not.

Yes it is.

"Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48)."