Please Provide Historical Proof That Peter Was The First Pope.

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Can you name a source? I would like to see this..

It turns out that there's a reason St. Peter's Basilica was built where it stands. A reason Michelangelo's dome, Bernini's spiral-columned canopy and the main altar are all precisely where they are.

In 1939, workers renovating the grottoes beneath St. Peter's, the traditional burial area of the popes, made a stunning find. Just below the floor level, they discovered an ancient Roman grave. It soon became clear that there wasn't just one grave, but an entire city of the dead. After many months of digging, the excavators came to a section of older graves, near the area underneath the high altar. Directly beneath the altar, they found a large burial site and a wall painted red. Back along an ancient subterranean path between two rows of fragile Christian tombs a small pillar that was part of one of the earliest monuments over the saint's grave, a wall that once bore a faint Greek inscription “Petros emi” translated as "Here lies Peter," In a niche connected to that wall, they found the bones determined to be those of a 60- to 70-year-old man who had died nearly 1,900 years earlier.. Also, remember that at the time “Peter” was not a proper name.

Caius, as recorded by Eusebius said: “I can point out the trophies of the Apostles, for if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church.



If that’s not enough, it is the constant teaching for nearly 2000 years and of the Patristic Writers that Peter was martyred and buried in Rome.

In actual fact, the evidence of Peter's martyrdom in Rome is infinitely more vast than the evidence, for example, of Hannibal's crossing the Alps. Those casting doubt are clearly operating from a biased predisposition are not weighing the evidence as compared to the other historical events such as Hannibal's.

Here is one resource: http://www.sdmart.org/pix/education/vatican-teacher-guide.pdf



Archaeologists Dig for Clues. Kate Duke, Harper Trophy Books

The Bones of Saint Peter: The fascinating Account of the Search for the Apostle’s Body – John E. Walsh

The Shrine of St. Peter and the Vatican Excavations. Peter J Toynbee and J. Ward Perkins, Pantheon Books



Additionally, scholarly studies have been performed at the major European Universities, both secular and religious.

 

[repentant]

It turns out that there's a reason St. Peter's Basilica was built where it stands. A reason Michelangelo's dome, Bernini's spiral-columned canopy and the main altar are all precisely where they are.

In 1939, workers renovating the grottoes beneath St. Peter's, the traditional burial area of the popes, made a stunning find. Just below the floor level, they discovered an ancient Roman grave. It soon became clear that there wasn't just one grave, but an entire city of the dead. After many months of digging, the excavators came to a section of older graves, near the area underneath the high altar. Directly beneath the altar, they found a large burial site and a wall painted red. Back along an ancient subterranean path between two rows of fragile Christian tombs a small pillar that was part of one of the earliest monuments over the saint's grave, a wall that once bore a faint Greek inscription “Petros emi” translated as "Here lies Peter," In a niche connected to that wall, they found the bones determined to be those of a 60- to 70-year-old man who had died nearly 1,900 years earlier.. Also, remember that at the time “Peter” was not a proper name.

Caius, as recorded by Eusebius said: “I can point out the trophies of the Apostles, for if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church.



If that’s not enough, it is the constant teaching for nearly 2000 years and of the Patristic Writers that Peter was martyred and buried in Rome.

In actual fact, the evidence of Peter's martyrdom in Rome is infinitely more vast than the evidence, for example, of Hannibal's crossing the Alps. Those casting doubt are clearly operating from a biased predisposition are not weighing the evidence as compared to the other historical events such as Hannibal's.

Here is one resource: http://www.sdmart.org/pix/education/vatican-teacher-guide.pdf



Archaeologists Dig for Clues. Kate Duke, Harper Trophy Books

The Bones of Saint Peter: The fascinating Account of the Search for the Apostle’s Body – John E. Walsh

The Shrine of St. Peter and the Vatican Excavations. Peter J Toynbee and J. Ward Perkins, Pantheon Books



Additionally, scholarly studies have been performed at the major European Universities, both secular and religious.

I hope you didn't take my asking for a source as me being sarcastic. In case you didn't notice my faith icon, I am Orthodox and we do believe Peter was in and martyred in Rome...

Anyway, that is very interesting. So in 1939 they found this? How come we, or at least I never heard of it?

Have they found anything more recently?

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

I hope you didn't take my asking for a source as me being sarcastic. In case you didn't notice my faith icon, I am Orthodox and we do believe Peter was in and martyred in Rome...

Anyway, that is very interesting. So in 1939 they found this? How come we, or at least I never heard of it?

Have they found anything more recently?

I apologize if I gave that impression. No, I definitely was not being sarcastic. I sometimes include additional detail because of readers who may not be aware of the facts.

As far as I know, this is the most recent new information.

Grace and peace be with you always.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The "spirit" compels me

 

[TheCatholic]

Please Provide Historical Proof That Peter Was The First Pope

For you to read:

Apostolic Succession (Fathers*)
The Authority of the Pope Part 1 (Fathers*)
The Authority of the Pope Part 2 (Fathers*)
Origins of Peter as Pope (Fathers*)
Papal Infallibility
Peter and the Papacy
Peter the Rock
Peter's Primacy (Fathers*)
Peter's Roman Residency (Fathers*)
Peter's Successors (Fathers*)
Was Peter in Rome?


* Includes commentary by the Early Church Fathers
​

 

[luckyfredsdad]

I disagee entirely with the comment that Peter was first Bishop of Rome! He was an apostle, a member of the apostolic college and as such had no need of that title!

Whilst he might have had some pre-eminence in the Apostolic College, or group, there's nothing at all in Scripture or Tradition to warrant any connection with the Bishop of Rome!

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The "spirit" compels me

Which Spirit though...

Last post was three years ago.

Lord have mercy.

Forgive me...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Which Spirit though...

Last post was three years ago.

Lord have mercy.

Forgive me...

The spirit moves in sometimes mysterious way

Ezekiel 8:3 And He putteth forth a form of a hand and is taking me by a lock of my head, and a spirit she is lifting me between the Land and the Heavens, and she is bringing me Jerusalem-ward in appearance of Elohiym to portal of gate, the inner the one facing north-ward which there a seat of a figure/image of the jealously, the provoking jealously.

Reve 17:3 And he carries me away into a wilderness in spirit, and I saw a Woman sitting on a beast, scarlet, being replete of names of blasphemy having heads, seven, and horns, ten.

 

[Playfair]

I am not saying anything one way or the other. I for one do not believe that Peter was the first pope, or that he was a bishop of Rome.

I did find this, which I think is interesting. Is it the truth? I don't know. In the end, what I know is Jesus is my High Priest, and I am a vicar of Christ - I am His vessel. There is no need for another man to fulfill the promise that has been given to me.

Saint Peter's Jerusalem Tomb

This is one of those issues that is useless to debate. There is no victory.

 

[plmarquette]

what of Moses and Jethro and the rules of the congregation which became the "magesterium"....
what of Aaron and his seeds (one person, one seat, one chair) the high priests
what of the Popes of Avigion and Rome..."pizza-pizza" 2 for the price of one....
what of the keys to the kingdom and Jesus' words, you are the rock and upon your faith, I will start the beurocracy of the church....

what do you want....1625 years from now King James and some very conservative people will revise the book translated by Jerome and.....
I don't think so...

 

[jesuschristmysavior]

Just wanted to say that I'm very glad this thread was bumped, it's been an extremely interesting read, and I've learned some things that I never knew before.

 

[RMDY]

Peter as Bishop of Rome - perhaps
Peter as Pope - unlikely since I reckon and have heard that the position of pope did not exist until post-300 AD...

 

[Anglian]

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most gloriousapostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradtion has been preserved coninously by those [faithful me] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.

This is from Against Heresies, Book 3 by St. Irenaeus, a disciple of St. Polycarp who was a disciple of St. John. It was written about 160 AD.

As for 'Pope' it is simply colloquial Latin for 'Father' - i.e. 'Papa'. The Copts call their bishops 'An
abba', which, of course, is also 'father'.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Epiphoskei]

The problems with Peter as Bishop of Rome are two as far as I see.

First, while the ancient role of Apostle and the modern role of Bishop are similar, i.e., a Church official with a responsibility for the well-being of many inferior Churches, in the first century it was not so, with Bishops being the local authorities over individual churches, not diocese of any kind. So it is doubtful if an Apostle could ever fulfil the role of Bishop, the two having irreconcilable objectives. One is a sedentary one-church official, the other, a mobile multi-church official.

Second, the first century church did not have monarchial Bishops. This seems to have begun in Asia Minor and Syria in the late first to early second centuries, but by the time the Chuch of Rome wrote I Clement to Corinth, they still were ruled by "the elders/bishops," plural. Indeed, it seems that that letter was not written by a "Pope Clement" at all, but rather, by all the Bishops, and the title of Clement was simply retroactivly applied after Rome decided that it should be run by only one bishop, and modified their history to show a list of monarchial bishops who never did rule singularly. If an apostle can be a bishop in the first century, Peter still couldn't be "the" Bishop of Rome if the church didn't have a single bishop-structure until well after 100.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Epiphoskei,

Your arguments are familiar and right as far as they go, but they overlook the idea that things developed across time. Indeed, as early as the letters of Polycarp (the disciple of St. John) we can see the notion of the monarchical bishop expressed; it is there even more in the letters of St. Ignatius. We don't know when it started, any more than we know who first used the word Trinity; but we don't date either development to the first time we find the word used, surely?

The quotation I offered from St. Irenaeus is evidence for St. Peter's position as one of the leaders of the Church in Rome; the tradition of that Church from before St. Irenaeus until now is that he was its first bishop. Modern man may choose to ignore such a tradition, but that does not invalidate it.

And yes, and of course, the role of the bishop at Rome in St. Peter's time was not exactly what it became later; but that does not invalidate the tradition either.

If the traditions of the Church are ignored then a great deal, including the canon of the Bible, comes under question. It is dangerous practice to saw off branches upon which so many sit.

peace,

Anglian

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The problems with Peter as Bishop of Rome are two as far as I see.

First, while the ancient role of Apostle and the modern role of Bishop are similar, i.e., a Church official with a responsibility for the well-being of many inferior Churches, in the first century it was not so, with Bishops being the local authorities over individual churches, not diocese of any kind. So it is doubtful if an Apostle could ever fulfil the role of Bishop, the two having irreconcilable objectives. One is a sedentary one-church official, the other, a mobile multi-church official.

Second, the first century church did not have monarchial Bishops. This seems to have begun in Asia Minor and Syria in the late first to early second centuries, but by the time the Chuch of Rome wrote I Clement to Corinth, they still were ruled by "the elders/bishops," plural. Indeed, it seems that that letter was not written by a "Pope Clement" at all, but rather, by all the Bishops, and the title of Clement was simply retroactivly applied after Rome decided that it should be run by only one bishop, and modified their history to show a list of monarchial bishops who never did rule singularly. If an apostle can be a bishop in the first century, Peter still couldn't be "the" Bishop of Rome if the church didn't have a single bishop-structure until well after 100.

Actually it was, and still is both, in the eastern Churches. A Bishop is not a "top down" ruler, but rather an administrator of council. He is one vote. The Church is concilar with the laity having they larger part. When all of them speak "with one voice", we understand that The Holy Spirit has spoken. IOW ~ The Church is run by concensus, not "a" Bishop.

Forgive me...

 

[Epiphoskei]

Dear Epiphoskei,

Your arguments are familiar and right as far as they go, but they overlook the idea that things developed across time. Indeed, as early as the letters of Polycarp (the disciple of St. John) we can see the notion of the monarchical bishop expressed; it is there even more in the letters of St. Ignatius. We don't know when it started, any more than we know who first used the word Trinity; but we don't date either development to the first time we find the word used, surely?

Yes, but the notion of development over time is precicely the problem the notion of Peter as Bishop of Rome runs into, that position hadn't developed yet. On the basis of the fact that I Clement's language is prohibitive of Rome having a monarch bishop yet, Peter could not have been a monarch bishop.

The quotation I offered from St. Irenaeus is evidence for St. Peter's position as one of the leaders of the Church in Rome; the tradition of that Church from before St. Irenaeus until now is that he was its first bishop. Modern man may choose to ignore such a tradition, but that does not invalidate it.

And yes, and of course, the role of the bishop at Rome in St. Peter's time was not exactly what it became later; but that does not invalidate the tradition either.

If the traditions of the Church are ignored then a great deal, including the canon of the Bible, comes under question. It is dangerous practice to saw off branches upon which so many sit.

peace,

Anglian

No, the tradition is not invalidated by our choice to ignore it, it's invalidated by an analysis of early Church history. The Apostles did not appoint monarchs, they appointed counsils of elders in every church, a practice that continued in Rome until the second century. If Rome didn't have monarchs, Peter wasn't the monarch.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Epiphoskei,

I see, but still wonder if there really is a difficulty here at all. What tradition claims is that St. Peter was bishop of Rome; it does not claim that he was a monarchical bishop; indeed the RCC itself makes no claim for that.

The office of bishop developed there, as elsewhere, toward the monarchical model we see as early as Ignatius and Polycarp. Given that this was at the turn of the century and that we don't know when it developed in this way, it seems to me safest simply to say what I said in the first paragraph.

The OP asks for evidence that St. Peter was the first Pope, St. Irenaeus provides that. What we mustn't do is muddy the water by disputing over something that I don't think is in dispute; is anyone claiming that St. Peter was a monarchical bishop?

peace,

Anglian

 

[Epiphoskei]

By monarchial I don't mean dictatorial. The term has taken on a specific meaning of "singular" in early Church history. Peter was precluded from being "The" Bishop of Rome because Rome didn't have singular Bishops until well after 100.

If Rome wished to argue that Peter was a bishop of Rome among many, I suppose it could do that, though I still doubt that the office of Apostle and Episcopos could ever be held at the same time. The problem is Rome doesn't do that, clinging to lists going "Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement," etc., when none of these people ever had a singular Bishophood. Unless Rome is prepared to come out and say "well, these lists are wrong, and while Peter was one of the first Roman bishops, Rome was ruled by counsils of popes whose names we don't know for the first hundred years," we should interpret these lists as claims that Peter's office was handed down one man to another from Peter to Benedict XVI.

And that matters, because certainly the Roman claim to primacy rests heavily on the idea that only one man can sit in the seat of Peter. Saint Cyprian's argument that every Bishop is in Peter's office would gain serious currency if Rome admitted that at one point there were lots of simultaneous sucessors to Peter.

 

[Anglian]

By monarchial I don't mean dictatorial. The term has taken on a specific meaning of "singular" in early Church history. Peter was precluded from being "The" Bishop of Rome because Rome didn't have singular Bishops until well after 100.

Thanks for the clarification; I did wonder. I don't think there is a necessary contradiction between the Roman tradition and that of St. Irenaeus; no one, I think, is arguing that there was, of necessity, a single bishop as there was later; you are right, though, to alert us to the difference, so thanks.

If Rome wished to argue that Peter was a bishop of Rome among many, I suppose it could do that, though I still doubt that the office of Apostle and Episcopos could ever be held at the same time. The problem is Rome doesn't do that, clinging to lists going "Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement," etc., when none of these people ever had a singular Bishophood. Unless Rome is prepared to come out and say "well, these lists are wrong, and while Peter was one of the first Roman bishops, Rome was ruled by counsils of popes whose names we don't know for the first hundred years," we should interpret these lists as claims that Peter's office was handed down one man to another from Peter to Benedict XVI.

And that matters, because certainly the Roman claim to primacy rests heavily on the idea that only one man can sit in the seat of Peter. Saint Cyprian's argument that every Bishop is in Peter's office would gain serious currency if Rome admitted that at one point there were lots of simultaneous sucessors to Peter

I'm not sure Rome is arguing that Peter was a monarchical bishop - just that he is, by tradition, founder of their Church; unless we can prove otherwise, why refuse to accept what St. Irenaeus writes?

I'm not sure why Rome should admit to something for which there is no evidence. There might well, as St. Irenaeus writes, have been a recognised successor to the Apostle, as well as lesser 'bishops'. What there is not is a tradition for there being many successors. We should not impose our model in the absence of evidence - any more than Rome should (if it does) proclaim there was a monarchical system.

peace,

Anglian