Was Peter a Pope, at least the first?

[barryatlake]

Exactly, the Christians of Rome knew that Peter was crucified upside down and Peter had passed on his authority to the first papal cardinals [ just as he organized to replace Judas] to select Linus the second bishop of Rome the "papa'' or Pope of the only Church that Jesus left for His First, Second and all future Centuries until Jesus returns as He promised.

 

[ChangedByHim]

There are no popes in the New Testament.

 

[Albion]

Exactly, the Christians of Rome knew that Peter was crucified upside down and Peter had passed on his authority to the first papal cardinals

Excuse me, but you are not agreeing with what I wrote there (despite the "Exactly" comment).

Peter had not named or consecrated a successor.

Linus wasn't even living in Rome at the time.

So, there's no "Peter had passed on his authority." Did you think I wouldn't notice that little insertion? Or is it only a case of you not having read my post carefully enough?

 

[Edward65]

Edward, if you would kindly turn to { Matt.18: 15-18} in your KJV you will understand that Jesus is referring to His One True Apostolic Church [ Luke 10:16 ] Back in Matt.16 we see where the "keys' were only given to St.Peter and not to Luther, Calvin, Smith, etc. Peter passed the "keys'' onto Linus the second bishop of Rome

The keys are given to all true Christians, as every Christian has the Holy Spirit and can declare God’s forgiveness to those who are repentant. In Matthew 18 the keys are given to the whole Church, and of course Peter is included as you’ve mentioned. However your belief that the popes are successors to Peter, and that Peter was a pope is completely untrue. The popes, and those who follow the popes, aren’t part of The True Church but rather they are an heretical sect which has perverted the Gospel of free grace and forgiveness received through faith alone, into a false gospel of works righteousness.

Even if it’s true that Peter was a bishop at Rome (which can’t be proved was the case) and that there’s an unbroken line of succession back to Peter from the present pope, that doesn’t mean anything, because the idea of apostolic succession is just a man-made doctrine. The popes might stand in an historical succession to Peter (although the early bishops of Rome certainly weren’t popes), but they’re not the spiritual successors of Peter, because they teach a false gospel which doesn’t agree with the Gospel that the Apostles taught.

 

[Edward65]

I agree with Luther when he said: "Where God’s word is purely taught, there is also the upright and true church; for the true church is supported by the Holy Ghost, not by succession of inheritance. It does not follow, though St Peter had been bishop at Rome, and at the same time Christian communion had been at Rome, that, therefore, the pope and the Romish church are true; for if that should be of value or conclusive, then they must needs confess that Caiaphas, Annas, and the Sadducees were also the true church; for they boasted that they were descended from Aaron". (Luther's Table Talk, Of The Church)

 

[pshun2404]

Exactly, the Christians of Rome knew that Peter was crucified upside down and Peter had passed on his authority to the first papal cardinals [ just as he organized to replace Judas] to select Linus the second bishop of Rome the "papa'' or Pope of the only Church that Jesus left for His First, Second and all future Centuries until Jesus returns as He promised.

There were no such things as Cardinals before the 5th century and no one else in all Christendom had them...the office was man made and neither Scriptural nor apostolic tradition....

 

[Albion]

There were no such things as Cardinals before the 5th century and no one else in all Christendom had them...the office was man made and neither Scriptural nor apostolic tradition....

You've placed them about six centuries too early, but there's no question that the College of Cardinals was a creation of the Roman Catholic Church, not the undivided church of the first millennium.

As a group of administrators tended to keep the election of the Pope more orderly, there is nothing especially controversial about Cardinals (all of whom are bishops), but of course "barryatlake" was just pulling excuses out of his hat with that claim as well as some that preceded it.

 

[Edward65]

Since I generally favor the EOC over the RCC by a significant margin, I would like to agree with your statement completely. However, my studies do not allow me to do so. There is at least one instance which seems to indicate that the EO may have once held to the RCC view of the supremacy of the Pope. When one Church Council was held that was not recognized by Rome as an Ecumenical Council, it named the Bishop of Constantinople as second in primacy among the five Patriarchs, next to the Pope. However, for some reason, history records that the Constantinople Patriarch later sent a letter to the Pope, which more or less amounted to an apology, explaining something to the effect that no insult was intended to the Pope, etc. Now why would the Constantinople Patriarch have felt the need to send an apologetic letter to the Pope of Rome, unless he was acknowledging that the Pope was his superior? Somehow I do not believe that the matter is totally clear. I do agree with you that in the first few centuries there is no real evidence to indicate that the East viewed the Bishop of Rome as supreme. However, this may have changed as the centuries went by. Still, it is clear by the time of Photius, that by then the East did not view the Pope as their supreme leader. I guess I am uncertain how the East really felt from say the 400's-the 800's.

Was he really the Church's first Pope? If not, who was really the first Pope?

Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church Vol 4, chapter 4, section 51 on Gregory and the Universal Episcopate will be of interest:

History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073. - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

John IV., the Faster, patriarch of Constantinople, repeatedly used in his letters the title “oecumenical” or “universal bishop.” This was an honorary, title, which had been given to patriarchs by the emperors Leo and Justinian, and confirmed to John and his successors by a Constantinopolitan synod in 588. It had also been used in the Council of Chalcedon of pope Leo I. But Gregory I. was provoked and irritated beyond measure by the assumption of his Eastern rival, and strained every nerve to procure a revocation of that title. He characterized it as a foolish, proud, profane, wicked, pestiferous, blasphemous, and diabolical usurpation, and compared him who used it to Lucifer……

After the death of John the Faster in 596 Gregory instructed his ambassador at Constantinople to demand from the new patriarch, Cyriacus, as a condition of intercommunion, the renunciation of the wicked title, and in a letter to Maurice he went so far as to declare, that “whosoever calls himself universal priest, or desires to be called so, was the forerunner of Antichrist.”

In view of the fact that Gregory rejected the title of universal priest, Luther held that the first pope was Gregory’s next but one successor Boniface III who did accept the title. See Wikipedia on Boniface III:

His other notable act resulted from his close relationship with Emperor Phocas. He sought and obtained a decree from Phocas which restated that "the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle should be the head of all the Churches". This ensured that the title of "Universal Bishop" belonged exclusively to the Bishop of Rome, and effectively ended the attempt by Patriarch Cyriacus of Constantinople to establish himself as "Universal Bishop".

 

[pshun2404]

You've placed them about six centuries too early, but there's no question that the College of Cardinals was a creation of the Roman Catholic Church, not the undivided church of the first millennium.

As a group of administrators tended to keep the election of the Pope more orderly, there is nothing especially controversial about Cardinals (all of whom are bishops), but of course "barryatlake" was just pulling excuses out of his hat with that claim as well as some that preceded it.

Not defending the idea, but Gelasius I used the term in the 5th century. He called any priest associated with a particular local Church Cardinalis from the Latin root Cardo or hinge, and it represented a person in a chief or principle place of authority between the local parishioners and the Vatican or seat of the Roman Bishop (who at the time was Gelasius himself).

However, if primacy is established by Peter being the first Bishop there, then the primacy belongs to Antioch and not Rome...

In His love

Paul

 

[Albion]

Not defending the idea, but Gelasius I used the term in the 5th century. He called any priest associated with a particular local Church Cardinalis from the Latin root Cardo or hinge, and it represented a person in a chief or principle place of authority between the local parishioners and the Vatican or seat of the Roman Bishop (who at the time was Gelasius himself).

I don't doubt that, but it's interesting. It obviously is to use the word in a different way. The College of Cardinals could well have been called something else, but this is the "Electoral College" of the Popes that was created in response to a particular suggestion in the early second Millennium.

However, if primacy is established by Peter being the first Bishop there, then the primacy belongs to Antioch and not Rome...

Logically so, yes. The mention of that fact, however, reminds me of the actual reasons why the bishop of Rome was the one to emerge on top--the prominence of the city of Rome in several ways, most of them having nothing to do with Peter's residency there.

 

[saintboniface]

The RC church says a lot of things that aren't true.

But the Catholic Church was good enough for your ancestors, wasn't it?

 

[saintboniface]

The RC church says a lot of things that aren't true.

But the Catholic Church was good enough for your ancestors, wasn't it?

 

[Albion]

But the Catholic Church was good enough for your ancestors, wasn't it?

When they had no other choice, do you mean?

 

[ViaCrucis]

But the Catholic Church was good enough for your ancestors, wasn't it?

Before my ancestors were Catholic and Christian they were Pagan. Are you sure such logic is useful?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[saintboniface]

When they had no other choice, do you mean?

Oh, they had a choice. Just like ol' King Henry had a choice when he followed his groin instead of his head and heart.

 

[saintboniface]

Before my ancestors were Catholic and Christian they were Pagan. Are you sure such logic is useful?

-CryptoLutheran

Sure it is. Pagans did not know of Christ. If they searched for God to the best of their abilities without knowing of Christ, who can blame them. Only those who refused the words of Christ after learning of them can be blamed.

Anglicans on the other hand were given the true faith in England. But they perverted their religion. The proof is what we see today in the Anglican church. What a mess. You know what I am talking about.

 

[Albion]

Oh, they had a choice. Just like ol' King Henry had a choice when he followed his groin instead of his head and heart.

Kind of a clumsy metaphor, don't you really think? After all, he WAS following his heart...and he remained a Catholic to his dying day and was never declared a heretic by Rome. Anyway, I'm pretty sure he was not one of my ancestors.

 

[Edward65]

But the Catholic Church was good enough for your ancestors, wasn't it?

There’s something missing in your understanding of the situation. The early Church that "was good enough for my ancestors” got taken over by the popes and the papists, and the true Church was suppressed, although it’s still there, but only in great weakness, because there will be a few true Christians left under the Papacy.

So your question is absurd because it assumes that the Catholicism we know today is the same as the catholicism of the early Church - which is simply not the case.

 

[saintboniface]

There’s something missing in your understanding of the situation. The early Church that "was good enough for my ancestors” got taken over by the popes and the papists, and the true Church was suppressed, although it’s still there, but only in great weakness, because there will be a few true Christians left under the Papacy.

In what year did the early church get taken over by the popes and the papists?

 

[Edward65]

In what year did the early church get taken over by the popes and the papists?

I covered this in my previous post:

Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church Vol 4, chapter 4, section 51 on Gregory and the Universal Episcopate will be of interest:

History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073. - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

John IV., the Faster, patriarch of Constantinople, repeatedly used in his letters the title “oecumenical” or “universal bishop.” This was an honorary, title, which had been given to patriarchs by the emperors Leo and Justinian, and confirmed to John and his successors by a Constantinopolitan synod in 588. It had also been used in the Council of Chalcedon of pope Leo I. But Gregory I. was provoked and irritated beyond measure by the assumption of his Eastern rival, and strained every nerve to procure a revocation of that title. He characterized it as a foolish, proud, profane, wicked, pestiferous, blasphemous, and diabolical usurpation, and compared him who used it to Lucifer……

After the death of John the Faster in 596 Gregory instructed his ambassador at Constantinople to demand from the new patriarch, Cyriacus, as a condition of intercommunion, the renunciation of the wicked title, and in a letter to Maurice he went so far as to declare, that “whosoever calls himself universal priest, or desires to be called so, was the forerunner of Antichrist.”

In view of the fact that Gregory rejected the title of universal priest, Luther held that the first pope was Gregory’s next but one successor Boniface III who did accept the title. See Wikipedia on Boniface III:

His other notable act resulted from his close relationship with Emperor Phocas. He sought and obtained a decree from Phocas which restated that "the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle should be the head of all the Churches". This ensured that the title of "Universal Bishop" belonged exclusively to the Bishop of Rome, and effectively ended the attempt by Patriarch Cyriacus of Constantinople to establish himself as "Universal Bishop".