Please Provide Historical Proof That Peter Was The First Pope.

[Benedicta00]

How do they know that? If this is true, why the disagreement between the Catholics and the Orthodox? Clearly, one of you is wrong, yet you both make the same claim.

How do they know what?

The deposit of faith was given to the Church and later on it was committed to inspired writings . We can see all of the teaching there if we know what the deposit of faith is.

They do not pick up a bible and just start interpreting it and concluding doctrine from it, any more than we do . We go by the faith Jesus gave to his Church and the book is used to show that faith, infallibly

 

[lismore]

repentant,

Could you please explain to us how you know that your church has correctly interpreted the Gospel?

No-one interprets the gospel. The gospel interprets you .

 

[PraiseToHim]

No-one interprets the gospel.

Actually, everyone who reads the Gospel has to intrepret them. The problem is, how do we know whos interpetation is what the Apostles intended, since each of us comes up with a different interpretation?

 

[PraiseToHim]

To remind everyone what the OP asked for:
I would appreciate it if someone would provide proof, that has been determined, by what could be called a third party, to be proof that the Apostle Peter was, indeed, the first Pope of Rome.

Now, for you Orthodox who insist on creating disagreement with non-Catholic/non-Orthodox on this issue, you are misleading others.

racer, just why do you think that all of these various churches agree on this? Could it be because it is the truth?

Or do you believe that all of those denominations who generally disagree with each other the Orthodox, Anglicans, Catholics and the rest, are out to mislead you?

Maybe it's just that you could not possibly be wrong about this?

I asked this earlier, but I don't believe that you have ever answered it.

 

[ProAmerican]

That is a fine conclusion after looking at the facts.

Mine, and those of the entire Catholic, Easter Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some Reformed Churches, is the opposite.

The list which you previously gave on page 34, shows A.D. 355 and A.D. 374 as the first hintings of Peter being the first Bishop of Rome. As I said, there is a big gap between that and A.D. 67, which is the traditional date of Peter's martyrdom in Rome at the hands of Emperor Nero.

That big gap could only have been filled by word-of-mouth renderings, or hearsay. Hearsay is insufficient to conclusively prove that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

So the RCC, EO, OO, and some reformed churches base there belief on word-of-mouth renderings, or hearsay?

Sad.

 

[repentant]

So the RCC, EO, OO, and some reformed churches base there belief on word-of-mouth renderings, or hearsay?
Sad.

Not saying they base the tradition of Peter as first Pope of Rome on word of mouth or hearsey, but if so I seem to remember Paul telling us to keep traditions rather by word of mouth or Epistle...so is that sad?

 

[ProAmerican]

Not saying they base the tradition of Peter as first Pope of Rome on word of mouth or hearsey, but if so I seem to remember Paul telling us to keep traditions rather by word of mouth or Epistle...so is that sad?

Pauls's Epistles are a written record of Paul's writings to the churches and various individuals. Please give written record between A.D. 67 and A.D. 355 that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

 

[ScottBot]

Pauls's Epistles are a written record of Paul's writings to the churches and various individuals. Please give written record between A.D. 67 and A.D. 355 that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

Red Herring. Peter was an Apostle - Scripture.
Apostles established bishophrics - Scripture
Peter went to Rome as part of his Apostolic mission and established a congregation there- Scripture.
Since the Church in Rome was establlished by Peter and strengthed by Paul, and Paul wrote strongly about his prerogative to establish church authorities in the places where they had groups of believers, it is not a far stretch to say that Peter and Paul founded a strong congregation of believers in Rome, and since they were both hunted men (Paul was actually under arrest there to stand trial), you can bet that they trained someone to take over their pastoral duties in the event that they became incapable of doing so.

 

[repentant]

Pauls's Epistles are a written record of Paul's writings to the churches and various individuals. Please give written record between A.D. 67 and A.D. 355 that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

But you didn't answer the question. Paul said to keep word of mouth traditions. Did he not? So based on his telling us that, what is so sad if the tradition of Peter being the first Bishop of Rome was by word of mouth? Or in better terms, accepted as truth because people knew it, just like we know who the specific Bishops or Popes were 100 years ago. So answer my question. I believe people have already posted written record of Peter being first Bishop of Rome that was written within your time frame.

 

[Benedicta00]

Pauls's Epistles are a written record of Paul's writings to the churches and various individuals. Please give written record between A.D. 67 and A.D. 355 that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

Testimony is testimony. You have countless bishops over the span of hundreds of years. Why is having a written account between those times important? The Church was under persecution and was underground early on, so you are not going to find them in all probability.

But look here.

" '...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?"
Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae(Primacy text),4(A.D. 251),in NE,228-229

Here is one from 251 and this…

"Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church..."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,11:3(A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VIII:64

350 And this one, 325

"...Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others..."
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,2:14 (A.D. 325),in NPNF2,I:115

Another that is from 235

"By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' By this Spirit the rock of the Church was stablished."
Hippolytus,Discourse on the Holy Theophany,9(ante A.D. 235),ANF,V:237

So does this mean you will accept it now?

 

[repentant]

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].”

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth Bishop.

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

St Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", chapter III, (190 AD)
"...the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, 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."


Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

 

[vinoth316]

hi

If we take the bible to be the final authority, nowhere in the bible Paul greets Peter when he writes the letters to Rome.

Similarly in the letters that Paul wrote from Rome, he again misses to mention Peter whereas he mentions a lot of guys who offer their greetings.

May be Peter never visitedRome.

 

[Benedicta00]

hi

If we take the bible to be the final authority

But why would we do that?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

hi

If we take the bible to be the final authority, nowhere in the bible Paul greets Peter when he writes the letters to Rome.

Similarly in the letters that Paul wrote from Rome, he again misses to mention Peter whereas he mentions a lot of guys who offer their greetings.

May be Peter never visitedRome.

Then when he left the Church of Antioch in the hands of the next Bishop in 43 A.D. and said he was going to Rome he went somewhere else?

This would also make the assumtion that the second Bishop of Rome had no further contact with his mentor.

Forgive me....

 

[BBAS 64]

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].”

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth Bishop.

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

St Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", chapter III, (190 AD)
"...the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, 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."


Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

Good Day, Repentant

Who refers to Clement as the 4th bishop, that is certainly a novell approach to history...

Eusebius Book III

CHAPTER 15
Clement, the Third Bishop of RomeIn the twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years. The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs us that this Clement was his fellow-worker. His words are as follows: "With Clement and the rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are in the book of life."

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[copticorthodoxy]

Actually, there is really no evidence Peter was EVER in Rome.

yes !!
that is what the Coptic orthodox church of Alexandria believe in , we believe that the first bishop of Rome is St. Paul not St. Peter
and St. Peter went to Rome at his early life and he martyred there

 

[repentant]

Good Day, Repentant

Who refers to Clement as the 4th bishop, that is certainly a novell approach to history...

Eusebius Book III



Peace to u,

Bill

Ireneaus from the 2nd century wrote (as I posted) the Clement was the 4th Bishop of Rome, which includes Peter in that number. Eusebius did not count Peter as a Bishop when he wrote that Clement was the 3rd Bishop. He even makes it a point to say after the Apostles when mentioning him as 3rd Bishop.


But to everyone who still claims Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome, or was never even in Rome...a few of us have provided historical evidence of writings of people who were in the know that Peter was in Rome, and the first Bishop. So why don't you who don't think he was, provide historical proof he wasn't in Rome or Bishop. And I mean ancient writings, not some view of a modern day "preacher".

 

[1lostsheep]

that's a good idea! I have read all the info from the supporters here how about proof from the people that don't think he was? I would like to make an informed decision.

 

[TreesNTrees]

You want to see the absolute positive proof that Peter was not the Pope?

The 100% flawless proof?

 

[S Walch]

If you can proof it..