Please Provide Historical Proof That Peter Was The First Pope.

[racer]

From the link I provided:

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 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. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,3313 that is, the faithful everywhere, 416 inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] 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. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
​

Now, notice that Irenaeus said that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome and committed it to the hands of Linus before they were martyred. There is no hint here that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. We could infer from this passage that both Peter and Paul were the first bishops, but I don't even think that technically that is implied in this passage either.

 

[racer]

according to this logic, once the book of Acts turns to Paul, Peter ceases to exist.
this logic also makes me want to gouge my eyes out and replace them with grapenuts.

Well, I think the person who created this OP is being unreasonable if he expects Scriptureto have established exactly who was the first bishop of whatever church, be it Rome, Smryna, etc . . . .

However, I think what he objects to is the Catholic claim that Scripture (thus Jesus) established Peter as head apostle (Pope). There is no Scriptural evidence of this. Scriptural evidence is only required IF one claims that Scripture established a papal office and bestowed the office upon Peter. Since the Catholic Church does make this claim, it is not unreasonable to ask just what scriptural evidence supports this claim. Of course, we all know that we would be referred to Matt 16:18. I mean we've argued this over and over and over and over and--well-you get the point.

He has also put unreasonable restraints on the answers he is seeking.

Anyway, as for the comment above, actually once Paul enters the picture in Acts, we don't hear much from or about Peter. That's not to say that Peter wasn't busy spreading the Gospel and being about the "great commission," we just don't hear his name much after Paul enters the picture.

 

[racer]

Pro,

Just in case you didn't know, eoe, Maximus, and most of the other posters are not Roman Catholic. The vast preponderance of the historical evidence indicates that Peter was the first Pope of Rome.

Though I heartily agree that Peter was in Rome. It is clear from Ireneaus that not only Peter founded and built up the church there, but Paul was equally in charge. There is no indication that Peter was ever lone bishop in Rome. It was he and Paul who bestowed the episcopate on Linus. Not Peter alone.

 

[racer]

I think we can safely conclude with all of the overwhelming evidence together that
Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

I would go with the statement first bishop. He may have been first bishop alongside Paul--according to the evidence.

 

[Protestante]

But why does the first head of the Roman church gain so much more attention to the exact same title of another church in Smyrna for example?

 

[racer]

Why the funk would a source have to call him Pope from that early? Pope means "Papa". Oh darn, Peter wasnt necessarily referred to as Papa. Whoopy do. The Bishop of Alexandria is also called Pope. That has nothing to do with anything but I thought Id throw it out there. James was Bishop of Jerusalem as evidenced by him leading the Council there. It doesnt flat out call him Bishop but oh well. Jesus doesnt flat out call Himself God either.

These threads are silly. Why would the RCC, EO, and OO all witness to Peter's Bishopric? Why make it up. The EO, and OO dont hinge their authority upon it (and neither do the RCC), so why would they make it up?

Peter was in Rome. He was in charge there. Thus, he was a Pope aka Bishop of Rome.

So, what do you say about Ireneaus' writings that clearly say that both Peter and Paul established the church in Rome, then they both bestowed the episcopate on Linus?

 

[racer]

Mines from about that time, Peter is in Rome and while there, appoints the man to serve him as deacon of a Bishop.

Peter and Paul appoint Linus to bishop.

 

[Benedicta00]

There is no 'historical proof', just subjective data. The information from after Peter died that is quoted wont act as proof to everyone, just those who have a vested interest in believing it already. If there were proof then everyone following Christ would believe you.

What about 'proof' that peter was buried in jerusalem and that Jesus had brothers?

Oy vey..

 

[Benedicta00]

I would go with the statement first bishop. He may have been first bishop alongside Paul--according to the evidence.

Oy vey...

 

[Benedicta00]

Oh boy, here we go with the "Catholic Church is apostate" crap again.

I much prefer that ridiculous argument to the one where we didn’t exist for 300 years.

 

[racer]

Shelb5, do you have anything from before A.D 125 that state that Peter was the Bishop of Rome/Pope ?

You know, like the Op asked.

Personally, I don't agree with Catholicism, but the OP has placed unreasonable constrictions on his request. Now, if he thinks that lack of proof preceeding 125 A.D. proves that Peter was not in Rome or not first Pope/bishop, then I think his question is answered and he can rest assured that Peter wasn't Pope.

 

[Paul-martin]

I had friend who was a in rom and asked about this the answer they got was that if you are a catholic you jsut believe in that ,,,,

 

[racer]

But why does the first head of the Roman church gain so much more attention to the exact same title of another church in Smyrna for example?

All churches have a central office/headquarters.

 

[Benedicta00]

I had friend who was a in rom and asked about this the answer they got was that if you are a catholic you jsut believe in that ,,,,

Trust me, we believe in it becuase it's true, not becuase that's just how it is.

 

[racer]

Oy vey...

So--you disagree with Ireneaus?

JIMinny!!!!

 

[racer]

Trust me, we believe in it becuase it's true, not becuase that's just how it is.

So, tell me this, how do you, Michelle, know that it is true?

 

[racer]

Something being said in this thread is confusing me. The Orthodox do not believe in the Papal office, so why do people here--I think some Orthodox even--keep saying that the Orthodox believes Peter was the first Pope?

Can somebody help me out with this?

History proves many things, and one of those things is that the doctrine of the Papacy was an issue of great contention in the Catholic Church. It was even the reason for at one split in the CC that I know of for certain . . . . . . To claim that it was an uncontested and long held belief for 1500 to 1700 years, even within the CC only, is not quite honest.

 

[racer]

Here's an article about Dollinger a very devout Catholic who passionately opposed the doctrine of Papal Infallibility:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger (February 28, 1799 - January 14, 1890) was a Germantheologian and church historian.

. . . . It has been stated that in his earlier years Döllinger was a pronounced Ultramontane. This does not appear to have been altogether the case; for, very early in his professorial career at Munich, the Jesuits attacked his teaching of ecclesiastical history, and the celebrated Adam Möhler who afterwards became his friend, on being appealed to, pronounced on the whole in his favour. He also entered into relations with the well-known French Liberal Catholic Lamennais, whose views on the reconciliation of the Roman Catholic Church with the principles of modern society had aroused much suspicion in Ultramontane circles. In 1832 Lamennais, with his friends Lacordaire and Montalembert, visited Germany, and obtained considerable sympathy in their attempts to bring about a modification of the Roman Catholic attitude to modern problems. Döllinger seems to have regarded favourably the removal, by the Bavarian government, in 1841, of Professor Kaiser from his chair, because he had taught the infallibility of the pope.

On the other hand, he published a treatise in 1838 against mixed marriages, and in 1843 wrote strongly in favour of requiring Protestant soldiers to kneel at the consecration of the Host when compelled officially to be present at Mass. Moreover, in his works on The Reformation (3 vols. Regensburg, 1846-1848) and on Luther (1851, Eng, tr., 1853) he is very severe on the Protestant leaders, and he also accepts, in his earlier works, the Ultramontane view then current on the practical condition of the Church of England, a view he later changed. Meanwhile he had been well received in England; and he afterwards travelled in the Netherlands, Belgium and France, acquainting himself with the condition and prospects of the Roman Catholic Church. In 1842 he entered into correspondence with the leaders of the Tractarian movement in England, and some interesting letters have been preserved which were exchanged between him and Edward Pusey, Gladstone and James Hope-Scott. When the last-named joined the Church of Rome he was warmly congratulated by Döllinger on the step he had taken.

He regretted the gradual and very natural trend of his new English allies towards extreme Ultramontane views, of which Archdeacon, afterwards Cardinal, Manning ultimately became an enthusiastic advocate. In 1845 Döllinger was made representative of his university in the second chamber of the Bavarian legislature. In 1847, in consequence of the fall from power of the Abel ministry in Bavaria, with which he had been in close relations, he was removed from his professorship at Munich, but in 1849 he was invited to occupy the chair of ecclesiastical history. In 1848, when nearly every throne in Europe was shaken by the spread of revolutionary sentiments, he was elected delegate to the national German assembly at Frankfurt - a sufficient proof that at this time he was regarded as no mere narrow and technical theologian, but as a man of wide and independent views.

It has been said that his change of attitude to the Papacy dated from the Italian war in 1859. It is more probable that, like Robert Grosseteste, he had been attached to the Papacy as the only centre of authority, and the only guarantee for public order in the Church, but that his experience of the actual working of the papal system (and especially a visit to Rome in 1857) had to a certain extent convinced him how his ideal diverged from the reality. He may also have been unfavourably impressed with the promulgation by Pope Pius IX in 1854 of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Whatever his reasons, he ultimately became the leader of those who were energetically opposed to any addition to, or more stringent definition of, the powers which the Papacy had possessed for centuries. In some speeches at Munich in 1861 he outspokenly declared his view that the maintenance of the Roman Catholic Church did not depend on the temporal sovereignty of the pope. His book on The Church and the Churches (Munich, 1861) dealt to a certain extent with the same question. In 1863 he invited 100 theologians to meet at Malines and discuss the question which Lamennais and Lacordaire had prematurely raised in France, namely, the attitude that should be assumed by the Roman Catholic Church towards modern ideas. His address to the assembled divines was "practically a declaration of war against the Ultramontane party."

Continued . . . . .

 

[racer]

Continued on Dollinger:

He had spoken boldly in favour of freedom for the Church in the Frankfurt national assembly in 1848, but he had found the authorities of his Church claiming a freedom of a very different kind from that for which he had contended. The freedom he claimed for the Church was freedom to manage her affairs without the interference of the state; the champions of the papal monarchy, and notably the Jesuits, desired freedom in order to put a stop to the dissemination of modern ideas. The addresses delivered in the Catholic congress at Malines were a declaration in the direction of a Liberal solution of the problem of the relations of Church and State. The pope seemed to hesitate, but there could be little doubt what course he would pursue, and after four days' debate the assembly was closed at his command. On December 8, 1864 Pius IX issued the famous Syllabus, in which he declared war against modern science and progress. It was in connection with this question that Döllinger published his Past and Present of Catholic Theology (1863) and his Universities Past and Present (Munich, 1867).

It was about this time that some of the leading theologians of the Roman Catholic Church, wishing to emphasize, as well as to define more clearly, the authority of the pope, advised him to make his personal infallibility a dogma of the Church. Many bishops and divines considered the proposed definition a false one. Others, though accepting it as the truth, declared its promulgation to be inopportune. The headquarters of the opposition was Germany, and its leader was Döllinger, whose reputation and learning placed him far above any other member of the band of the theological experts who now gathered around him. Among them were his intimate friends Johann Friedrich and JN Huber, in Bavaria. In the rest of Germany he was supported by professors in the Catholic faculty of theology at Bonn, including the famous canonist von Schulte, Franz Heinrich Reusch, Joseph Langen, JH Reinkens, and other distinguished scholars. In Switzerland, Professor Edward Herzog and other learned men supported the movement. Early in 1869 the famous Letters of Janus (which were at once translated into English; 2nd ed. Das Papsttum, 1891) began to appear. They were written by Döllinger in conjunction with Huber and Friedrich. In these the tendency of the Syllabus towards obscurantism and papal despotism, and its incompatibility with modern thought, were clearly pointed out; and the evidence against papal infallibility, resting, as the Letters asserted, on the False Decretals, and accepted without controversy in an age of ignorance, was ably marshalled for the guidance of the council.

When, on December 8 1869, it had actually assembled, the world was kept informed of what was going on in the Letters of Quirinus, written by Döllinger and Huber while the debates of the council were proceeding. Some of these letters appeared in the German newspapers, and an English translation was published by Rivington. Augustin Theiner, the librarian at the Vatican, then in disgrace with the pope for his outspoken Liberalism, kept his German friends well informed of the course of the discussions. The proceedings of the council were frequently very stormy, and the opponents of the dogma of infallibility complained that they were not infrequently interrupted, and that endeavours were made to put them down by clamour. The dogma was at length carried by an overwhelming majority, and the dissentient bishops, who - with the exception of two - had left the council before the final division, one by one submitted.

Döllinger, however, was not to be silenced. He headed a protest by forty-four professors in the university of Munich, and gathered together a congress at Nuremberg, which met in August 1870 and issued a declaration adverse to the Vatican decrees. An immense ferment took place. In Bavaria, where Döllinger's influence was greatest, the strongest determination to resist the resolutions of the council prevailed. But the authority of the council was held by the archbishop of Munich to be paramount, and he called upon Döllinger to submit. Instead of submitting, Döllinger, on March 28, 1871, addressed a memorable letter to the archbishop, refusing to subscribe the decrees. They were, he said, opposed to Holy Scripture, to the traditions of the Church for the first 1000 years, to historical evidence, to the decrees of the general councils, and to the existing relations of the Roman Catholic Church to the state in every country in the world. "As a Christian, as a theologian, as an historian, and as a citizen," he added, "I cannot accept this doctrine."

The archbishop replied by excommunicating the disobedient professor. This aroused fresh opposition. Döllinger was almost unanimously elected rector-magnificus of the university of Munich, and Oxford, Edinburgh and Marburg universities conferred upon him the honorary degree of doctor of laws and Vienna that of philosophy. The Bavarian clergy invited Bishop Loos of the Jansenist Church in the Netherlands, which for more than 150 years had existed independent of the Papacy and had adopted the name of "Old Catholic," to hold confirmations in Bavaria. The offer was accepted, and the bishop was received with triumphal arches and other demonstrations of joy. The three Dutch Old Catholic bishops declared themselves ready to consecrate a bishop, if it were desired. The momentous question was discussed at a meeting of the opponents of the Vatican decrees, and it was resolved to elect a bishop and ask the Dutch bishops to consecrate him. Döllinger, however, voted against the proposition, and withdrew from any further steps towards the promotion of the movement. This was the critical moment in the history of the resistance to the decrees. Had Döllinger, with his immense reputation as a scholar, as a divine and as a man, allowed himself to be consecrated bishop of the Old Catholic Church, it is impossible to say how wide the schism would have been. But he declined to initiate a schism. His refusal lost Bavaria to the movement; and the number of Bavarian sympathizers was still further reduced when the seceders, in 1878, allowed their priests to marry, a decision which Döllinger, as was known, sincerely regretted. The Old Catholic Communion, however, was formally constituted, with Reinkens at its head as bishop, and it still continues to exist.

Döllinger's attitude to the new community was not very clearly defined. It may be difficult to reconcile the two declarations made by him at different times: "I do not wish to join a schismatic society; I am isolated," and "As for myself, I consider that I belong by conviction to the Old Catholic community." The latter declaration was made some years after the former, in a letter to Pastor Widmann. The nearest approach to a reconciliation of the two statements would appear to be that while, at his advanced age, he did not wish to assume the responsibility of being head of a new denomination, formed in circumstances of exceptional difficulty, he was unwilling to condemn those who were ready to hazard the new departure. "By conviction" he belonged to the Old Catholics, but he never formally joined them. Yet at least he was ready to meet their leaders, to address them, and to discuss difficult problems with them.

 

[racer]

Here's a link with some interesting facts refuting the Papacy:

http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/five.htm

This is from New Testament Research Ministries website.