Was Peter a Pope, at least the first?

[Root of Jesse]

Was he really the Church's first Pope? If not, who was really the first Pope? There were bishops and deacons, but I never found the word Pope in the Bible, which leads me to believe that there were no popes in Jesus' day, at least in Israel. By the way, I know that rapture does not appear in the Bible but I believe that there is indeed a rapture. Having said that, how does one qualify as a Pope? Couldn't Paul or Silas have been popes? They too were zealous proseletyzers like Peter was.

"Pope" is from the Greek pappas, what children call their father. A pope is usually a bishop, though in times past a lay person or priest has been selected. When that happens, ordination is required, then elevation to bishop, because the Pope's primary responsibility is to the diocese of Rome.

As for instituting the office, Jesus, indeed, did so in Matthew 16:18, supported by many others. And he made Peter the first. Of course, people say that Jesus immediately rebuked him, but Peter was not (could not be) the head of the Church until after Christ died, rose, and ascended. The Pope is the visible head of the Church on earth in Jesus' absence. Hence the title "Vicar of Christ".
Regarding "why Peter and not someone else?" It's always God's choice. Every ordination, especially to the rank of bishop, is a call from the Holy Spirit. While it's true that men (the Cardinals) vote for the next pope, remember that when the apostles were looking for a replacement for Judas, they prayed and drew straws. Some say it was luck. We say it was God. The Cardinals get together, pray, and then vote. Usually, those who go into conclave expecting to be pope do not leave the conclave as pope. Because it requires humility to fulfill the position. Just look at our current Holy Father...

 

[Albion]

As for instituting the office, Jesus, indeed, did so in Matthew 16:18, supported by many others.

Nope. Read them again and you won't find anything there about that. The first bishop of Rome to think of using this verse--in the 4th century--naturally wanted everyone to think that what is not written or implied there is, nevertheless, intended, but that's about all we can say. The verses themselves certainly do not.

And he made Peter the first. Of course, people say that Jesus immediately rebuked him, but Peter was not (could not be) the head of the Church until after Christ died, rose, and ascended.

I don't say that. I say, "where did Jesus say anything about a line of bishops in Rome being infallible or having worldwide jurisdiction?"

When someone is able to answer that, THEN we'll have something to discuss.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Nope. Read them again and you won't find anything there about that. The first bishop of Rome to think of using this verse--in the 4th century--naturally wanted everyone to think that what is not written or implied there is, nevertheless, intended, but that's about all we can say. The verses themselves certainly do not.


I don't say that. I say, "where did Jesus say anything about a line of bishops in Rome being infallible or having worldwide jurisdiction?"

When someone is able to answer that, THEN we'll have something to discuss.

Albion, I've answered your questions over and over, and you're just not going to be satisfied. It's like anything else regarding faith. For those that believe, nothing will change their belief.

Clement wrote to the Corinthians as an authoritative figure, and the Corinthians cherished his writing as their authority. In fact, it was often argued that Clement's letter to the Corinthians belonged in the Canon of Scripture. I don't particularly care when the term was first used. The concept was there from the first. It's in Acts where they named a successor to Judas. It's in Acts where Peter ratified the decision of the other apostles regarding circumcision. These are acts of authority of an office, as Jesus alluded to in Isaiah 22.

 

[Albion]

Albion, I've answered your questions over and over, and you're just not going to be satisfied.

As I said, I might be...if you produce some evidence. Merely making claims without any backing or saying that Bible verses say what anyone can see they do not, isn't going to do it. And I don't expect that you would take it as settled if I told you some wild religious theory and didn't back it up either.

Clement wrote to the Corinthians as an authoritative figure

That doesn't make him a Pope, and it doesn't even suggest that he thought he was one. The bishop of the most prestigious city in the world was naturally going to be asked for his opinion from time to time, that's all.

Look, it works the same way even today. Who do you think gets to be a Cardinal in the American church? The bishops of Des Moines and Kalamazoo? NO, it's always the bishops of Boston, New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago and maybe a couple others.

Corinthians cherished his writing as their authority.

then show me proof of that.

Not evidence that his opinion was respected or that he was respected, but that he was--as you said--an "authority" beyond all others (for that's what the Pope is supposed to be).

 

[Root of Jesse]

As I said, I might be...if you produce some evidence. Merely making claims without any backing or saying that Bible verses say what anyone can see they do not, isn't going to do it. And I don't expect that you would take it as settled if I told you some wild religious theory and didn't back it up either.

I don't particularly care what your opinion is of what I've produced.

That doesn't make him a Pope, and it doesn't even suggest that he thought he was one. The bishop of the most prestigious city in the world was naturally going to be asked for his opinion from time to time, that's all.

So what, in your esteemed estimation, would "make him Pope"?

Look, it works the same way even today. Who do you think gets to be a Cardinal in the American church? The bishops of Des Moines and Kalamazoo? NO, it's always the bishops of Boston, New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago and maybe a couple others.

Actually, Cardinal O'Malley was bishop of St. Thomas, VI, and another post before he became Archbishop of Boston, and later Cardinal.
Do you know where the President of the College of Cardinals is bishop? The big city of Ostia. The one who oversaw the Catechism is from Velletri-Segni. Care to Google it to figure out where these huge cities are? So what???

then show me proof of that.

Do you think that he just wrote to them? Neither did Paul just write to different groups. They received word from those particular churches asking questions and asking to settle disputes. That's the proof.

Not evidence that his opinion was respected or that he was respected, but that he was--as you said--an "authority" beyond all others (for that's what the Pope is supposed to be).

Yes, and what do you think a pope is??

 

[Edward65]

...Because it requires humility to fulfill the position. Just look at our current Holy Father...

Humility is the very last word I’d use to describe the popes. The present pope like his immediate predecessors is driven around in a glass topped pope-mobile, dressed all in white, and is greeted like a demi-god by the adoring masses. By behaving in this manner he’s encouraging people to admire him as some outstanding figure who can bring blessing to those who are in his presence. The popes behave as if they’re worthy of praise and that everyone should look up to them as examples of purity and piety. It’s just a complete deception. The popes are nothing but deceivers who detract from Christ and elevate themselves in His place.

 

[barryatlake]

Edward65,
Jesus Wants Us to Obey Apostolic Authority

Acts 5:13 - the people acknowledged the apostles' special authority and did not dare take it upon themselves.


Acts 15:6,24; 16:4 - the teaching authority is granted to the apostles and their successors. This teaching authority must be traced to the original apostles, or the authority is not sanctioned by Christ.

Rom. 15:16 – Paul says he is a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of the ordained which is distinguishable from the universal priesthood of the laity. Notice the Gentiles are the “sacrifice” and Paul does the “offering.”

1 Cor. 5:3-5; 16:22; 1 Tim. 1:20; Gal 1:8; Matt 18:17 – these verses show the authority of the elders to excommunicate / anathemize ("deliver to satan").


2 Cor. 2:17 - Paul says the elders are not just random peddlers of God's word. They are actually commissioned by God. It is not self-appointed authority.

2 Cor. 3:6 – Paul says that certain men have been qualified by God to be ministers of a New Covenant. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of Christ handed down the ages through sacramental ordination.

2 Cor. 5:20 - Paul says we are "ambassadors" for Christ. This means that the apostles and their successors share an actual participation in Christ's mission, which includes healing, forgiving sins, and confecting the sacraments.

2 Cor. 10:6 – in reference to the ordained, Paul says that they are ready to punish every disobedience. The Church has the authority excommunicate those who disobey her.

2 Cor. 10:8 - Paul acknowledges his authority over God's people which the Lord gave to build up the Church.

1 Thess. 5:12-13 - Paul charges the members of the Church to respect those who have authority over them.

2 Thess. 3:14 - Paul says if a person does not obey what he has provided in his letter, have nothing to do with him.

1 Tim. 5:17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to honor the appointed elders (“priests&#8221 of the Church.

Titus 2:15 - Paul charges Timothy to exhort and reprove with all authority, which he received by the laying on of hands.

Heb. 12:9 – in the context of spiritual discipline, the author says we have had earthly fathers (referring to the ordained leaders) to discipline us and we respected them.

Heb. 13:7,17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to remember and obey their leaders who have authority over their souls.

1 Peter 2:18 - Peter charges the servants to be submissive to their masters whether kind and gentle or overbearing.

1 Peter 5:5; Jude 8 - Peter and Jude charge the members of the Church to be subject to their elders.

2 Peter 2:10 - Peter warns the faithful about despising authority. He is referring to the apostolic authority granted to them by Christ.

3 John 9 - John points out that Diotrephes does not acknowledge John's apostolic authority and declares that this is evil.

Deut. 17:10-13 - the Lord commands His faithful Israel to obey the priests that He puts in charge, and do to all that they direct and instruct. The Lord warns that those who do not obey His priests shall die.

Num. 16:1-35 - Korah incited a "protestant" rebellion against God's chosen Moses in an effort to confuse the distinction between the ministerial and universal offices of priesthood, and Korah and his followers perished. (This effort to blind the distinctions between the priests and the laity is still pursued by dissidents today.)

 

[Albion]

Humility is the very last word I’d use to describe the popes. The present pope like his immediate predecessors is driven around in a glass topped pope-mobile, dressed all in white, and is greeted like a demi-god by the adoring masses. By behaving in this manner he’s encouraging people to admire him as some outstanding figure who can bring blessing to those who are in his presence. The popes behave as if they’re worthy of praise and that everyone should look up to them as examples of purity and piety. It’s just a complete deception. The popes are nothing but deceivers who detract from Christ and elevate themselves in His place.

That's a stern analysis, but consider this. Pope Francis is likened to St. Francis both because of his own expressed admiration for the saint and because of the name he took upon being named Pope. Can anyone imagine St. Francis doing all or even a little bit of what you've just described? He had to be talked into so much as being made a deacon in the church, so unpretentious was he.

 

[Edward65]

Edward65,
Jesus Wants Us to Obey Apostolic Authority

Comment from Luther:

"To us the authority of the pope and the bishops, after they have departed from the Word, should be worth no more than that of any private person. For they do not have a succession that stands without the Word, because the ministry is tied to the Word. Let him who does not follow it, who changes anything in it, whether pope or bishop, be accursed and not be the head or even a member of the true Church, according to the word of Paul: Let him who would evangelise with a different evangel be accursed, even if an angel from heaven were to do this (Gal 1:8)"

 

[Root of Jesse]

Humility is the very last word I’d use to describe the popes. The present pope like his immediate predecessors is driven around in a glass topped pope-mobile, dressed all in white, and is greeted like a demi-god by the adoring masses. By behaving in this manner he’s encouraging people to admire him as some outstanding figure who can bring blessing to those who are in his presence. The popes behave as if they’re worthy of praise and that everyone should look up to them as examples of purity and piety. It’s just a complete deception. The popes are nothing but deceivers who detract from Christ and elevate themselves in His place.

I guess you don't really know what humility is. All of the modern popes do not own anything. Not a pair of shoes, not much more than their underwear. This pope refused to live in the papal apartment, which is not lavish by any stretch. He lives in a community. This pope refused to be driven in his home diocese. He took the bus whenever he could. What you're referring to is more about the Church's concern for his security, than anything else. So I dare you-prove you're more humble than the man who washes prisoners' feet, kisses lepers, and asks the entire Church to pray for him.
Humility is a recognition of self in relation to God, acceptance of one's defects, and submission to divine grace.

 

[Albion]

I guess you don't really know what humility is. All of the modern popes do not own anything. Not a pair of shoes, not much more than their underwear.

C'mon. Having the unbridled use of the world's riches is to live a luxurious lifestyle by any standard.

And that's true of the President, too, if we want to make a comparison in order to illustrate this reality. He goes on vacation every other month at the taxpayer's expense, travels the world, lives in a mansion at the taxpayers' expense, buys presents as gifts from tax monies, and so on. I'm confident that you are not going to argue that he lives a Spartan existence just because he doesn't have to pick up the check.

 

[barryatlake]

Edward, why do you call yourself a Christian and yet refuse to follow the Apostolic Teaching, what part of Apostolic Succession do you not understand? At least acknowledge that the chosen apostles taught all that Jesus taught them the balance of their lives to the people of God. This we know from Luke 10:16 and other passages i.e. Matt. 28:18-20, - John20:21, - Eph.4:3-6.
Lets move beyond the 1st century where Jesus now sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven, the early Christians aree still without a completed bible, how do you think they heard the Word of God if there was not yet a Holy Bible, taking into consideration the OT and NT are both necessary for "getting the full picture " of the "Good News" of Jesus ? I'll tell you how, it was passed on down orally through Apostolic Teaching/Succession, that's how. Jesus meant for not only the first Christians but all future Christians also to hear His Teaching until He [ the Real Shepherd/Teacher returns ]. It is so easy to comprehend in Luke 10:16.
Common sense along with the basic understanding about the early population of the earth being illiterate, perhaps as late as the 17th century. Not to mention the expensive price of a bible. Church goers could read the stained-glass windows and have the Holy Scripture read to them daily, while no Catholic Mass is without Holy Scripture.

 

[Root of Jesse]

C'mon. Having the unbridled use of the world's riches is to live a luxurious lifestyle by any standard.

And that's true of the President, too, if we want to make a comparison in order to illustrate this reality. He goes on vacation every other month at the taxpayer's expense, travels the world, lives in a mansion at the taxpayers' expense, buys presents as gifts from tax monies, and so on. I'm confident that you are not going to argue that he lives a Spartan existence just because he doesn't have to pick up the check.

C'mon yourself. As if he owns any of it, and as if he uses it. I know lots of humble people who are rich. My own inlaws, as an example, except for one of the kids. The family built a school, and a hospital, and 75% of the students K-college are on scholarship at the family's expense. Every doctor who works in the hospital gives away a large portion of their time to caring for the poor. My brother-in-law employs a personal staff of about 100. He practically gives away his wealth. He's humble. His daughter is not. She spends her inheritance on $5000 coffee machines and a very stylish NYC apartment.
The Pope, whoever he is, while he wants for nothing, this is not the same as having the 'fabulous wealth' of the Church at his fingertips.

I think Obama abuses the resources he has. And it's not about paying for his hotel and food. I think many presidents could use the inherited trappings of office better. The Pope lives a spartan life by comparison to any other world power.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Humility is the very last word I’d use to describe the popes. The present pope like his immediate predecessors is driven around in a glass topped pope-mobile, dressed all in white, and is greeted like a demi-god by the adoring masses. By behaving in this manner he’s encouraging people to admire him as some outstanding figure who can bring blessing to those who are in his presence. The popes behave as if they’re worthy of praise and that everyone should look up to them as examples of purity and piety. It’s just a complete deception. The popes are nothing but deceivers who detract from Christ and elevate themselves in His place.

Actually, I don't think any pope believes he is worthy of praise, or an example of purity and piety. I think they try to live pious and holy lives. Popes don't detract from Christ, they don't elevate themselves (in fact, most don't want the position, but obey the will of God if chosen), but are chosen by God, and point toward God.

 

[Albion]

C'mon yourself. As if he owns any of it, and as if he uses it. I know lots of humble people who are rich.

And they live the life of rich persons. That's the point. It doesn't matter in whose name the deed is made out. If you live among wealth and have the use of it, you're not living the life of "the poor." There are no two ways about it.

But...as I've said before, I haven't made a firm decision on what I think about this Pope yet. I'll give him some time, but neither am I about to start talking about how he lives like a pauper and is the second Mother Teresa when it's obvious that such is not the case. If he moves in that direction, I'll be impressed. But so far, not much has changed except that he doesn't seem to be too stiff and formal in his personal mannerisms.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And they live the life of rich persons. That's the point. It doesn't matter in whose name the deed is made out. If you live among wealth and have the use of it, you're not living the life of "the poor." There are no two ways about it.

Name one way the Pope lives the life of a rich person...He doesn't own a car, he doesn't own any clothes, he doesn't own a mansion. I don't know what he eats, but I can guess it's spartan. So. no, I absolutely disagree with you. I suppose you believe that the abbot of a monastery, say Chartreuse in the French Alps lives the life of a rich person...After all, he lives in this facility:

[/quote]
But...as I've said before, I haven't made a firm decision on what I think about this Pope yet. I'll give him some time, but neither am I about to start talking about how he lives like a pauper and is the second Mother Teresa when it's obvious that such is not the case. If he moves in that direction, I'll be impressed. But so far, not much has changed except that he doesn't seem to be too stiff and formal in his personal mannerisms.[/quote]
We wait with bated breath...yawn

 

[Edward65]

Edward, why do you call yourself a Christian and yet refuse to follow the Apostolic Teaching....

I do follow the Apostolic Teaching and that's why I reject the Papacy and apostolic succession, which are only man-made teachings. I think those who follow the popes are in the grip of a delusion. In fact I know they are.

What the popes and the RC clergy teach doesn’t agree with God’s Word in the Bible. Justification is through faith alone as Paul teaches, and therefore to me the popes and bishops have no authority to teach anything. I’m not prepared to listen to them, and what they say I don’t pay any attention to. I don’t regard them as trustworthy people.

 

[Albion]

Name one way the Pope lives the life of a rich person...He doesn't own a car

I don't know who "owns" the brand new car he recently ordered, but he's the one who is chauffered around in it. If that doesn't illustrate the point I've been trying to explain to you, I suppose nothing will. If you or I were given the complete use of a new car, with chauffer at our disposal whenever we wanted them, no one would consider us to be experiencing the same fate as a person too poor to have a car.

 

[Edward65]

And they live the life of rich persons. That's the point. It doesn't matter in whose name the deed is made out. If you live among wealth and have the use of it, you're not living the life of "the poor." There are no two ways about it.

But...as I've said before, I haven't made a firm decision on what I think about this Pope yet. I'll give him some time, but neither am I about to start talking about how he lives like a pauper and is the second Mother Teresa when it's obvious that such is not the case. If he moves in that direction, I'll be impressed. But so far, not much has changed except that he doesn't seem to be too stiff and formal in his personal mannerisms.

The thing is even if the present pope or any pope did live without any of the trappings of wealth it wouldn't make any difference to the fact that they don't teach according to God's Word. That's the main thing or rather the only thing that really matters. That they live a wealthy lifestyle like heads of state isn't really the issue. It's what they teach which is the issue, and it's impossible that they can reject hundreds of years of history where the popes have been the enemies of the truth.

 

[Yarddog]

Sorry if I'm not able to get back into this discussion. My Aunt passed away and I'm not sure how much time I have to devote to this before leaving for Fla.

God Bless