Was Peter a Pope, at least the first?

[Albion]

Somebody consecrated Linus. It wasn't Peter, he was already buried.

See if you can find the answer to that for us.

You're confusing the person and the office. Jesus created an office, named Peter to fill it.

You mean that's a claim that your church came up with in order to justify its claim to worldwide jurisdiction. Nothing Jesus said--at least not as recorded in the Bible--had anything to do with Rome being the HQ of his church, nor did he name anyone to head it other than himself. And even if you think Peter was his intended, there absolutely was nothing said about him passing the commission to anyone else!

 

[barryatlake]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif]Irenaeus[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][/FONT]
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif]Tertullian[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][/FONT]
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif]The Little Labyrinth[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][/FONT]
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif]Eusebius of Caesarea[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][/FONT]
"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).
Copied from Jurgens " Early Church Fathers "

 

[barryatlake]

Irenaeus writes in France [ about 180 ]
The blessed Apostles [ Peter and Paul ], having founded and built up the Church[ of Rome ], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletuss; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus etc.

 

[Root of Jesse]

See if you can find the answer to that for us.


You mean that's a claim that your church came up with in order to justify its claim to worldwide jurisdiction. Nothing Jesus said--at least not as recorded in the Bible--had anything to do with Rome being the HQ of his church, nor did he name anyone to head it other than himself. And even if you think Peter was his intended, there absolutely was nothing said about him passing the commission to anyone else!

Since when did you become interpreter for Root of Jesse? If that's what you are, you don't do a good job.

I meant what I said. Barry showed it to you. It really doesn't matter who chose Linus, in Rome. The Holy Spirit was the one doing the bidding. FYI.

 

[Albion]

Since when did you become interpreter for Root of Jesse? If that's what you are, you don't do a good job.

I meant what I said. Barry showed it to you. It really doesn't matter who chose Linus, in Rome. The Holy Spirit was the one doing the bidding. FYI.

yeh, yeh, but we're not talking about "bidding" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Unless he was consecrated a bishop, there's no Apostolic Succession and he's no pope. Simple.

 

[Root of Jesse]

yeh, yeh, but we're not talking about "bidding" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Unless he was consecrated a bishop, there's no Apostolic Succession and he's no pope. Simple.

Where did you ever get the idea that you have to be a bishop to become a pope?

A lay person can be elected Pope, to this day. Once elected, he would need to be ordained, and then consecrated bishop, but it's never been a requirement. That's pretty simple, wouldn't you say?

 

[Albion]

Where did you ever get the idea that you have to be a bishop to become a pope?

You have to be a bishop in order to BE a Pope.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion, Root of Jesse in his post#146 , correct; "A lay person can be elected Pope, to this day. Once elected, he would need to be ordained, and then consecrated bishop, but it's never been a requirement. That's pretty simple, wouldn't you say? "
__________________

 

[Albion]

Albion, Root of Jesse in his post#146 , correct; "A lay person can be elected Pope, to this day. Once elected, he would need to be ordained, and then consecrated bishop, but it's never been a requirement. That's pretty simple, wouldn't you say? "

Yes. And we all know that. It never was an issue.

Now...address MY point if you care.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You have to be a bishop in order to BE a Pope.

So when Iranaeus says "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate." and when Eusebius says ""the first to receive the episcopate of the church at Rome, after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter" somehow you don't think he was consecrated bishop. Talk about face-palm!

 

[Albion]

So when Iranaeus says "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate."

There's nothing infallible about Irenaeus.

And if your own church admits that there's no evidence of Peter passing his bishopric on to anyone in Rome, as it does, I think you ought to pay attention to it.

 

[barryatlake]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif]Eusebius of Caesarea[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][/FONT]
"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

 

[Albion]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif]Eusebius of Caesarea[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif][/FONT]
"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

We know that Linus was sent for by the townsmen after Peter's death and that he was offered the leadership of the church at Rome. That wasn't the issue we were discussing.

 

[Dracula]

I generally support that "to the point" reply. However, I think we should add that there is no evidence and no reason to think that the Eastern Patriarchs have ever departed from their well-known opposition to Papal Supremacy, not in the first few generations all the way down to the present.

The pope is just the Bishop of Rome. Whether or not present day "papal supremacy" was recognised is irrelevant, isn't it?

 

[Albion]

The pope is just the Bishop of Rome. Whether or not present day "papal supremacy" was recognised is irrelevant, isn't it?

Hmm. Well, that's not a snap to answer.

IF Christ had intended something like a Papacy, then it would matter. Of course, he did not, so to that extent it doesn't matter.

But there is also the historical argument which runs something like this--the bishop of Rome WAS recognized by the rest of the church as being the universal leader. IF that were so, it might be possible to argue something from tradition, assuming that one were to put tradition (as some do) above Scripture.

But history definitely does NOT record that the Eastern Patriarchs deferred to the bishop of Rome. Far from it.

Therefore, there is no basis for adhering to Papal Supremacy except, of course, that some Christians choose to do so for their own reasons.

 

[Dracula]

Hmm. Well, that's not a snap to answer.

IF Christ had intended something like a Papacy, then it would matter. Of course, he did not, so to that extent it doesn't matter.

But there is also the historical argument which runs something like this--the bishop of Rome WAS recognized by the rest of the church as being the universal leader. IF that were so, it might be possible to argue something from tradition, assuming that one were to put tradition (as some do) above Scripture.

But history definitely does NOT record that the Eastern Patriarchs deferred to the bishop of Rome. Far from it.

Therefore, there is no basis for adhering to Papal Supremacy except, of course, that some Christians choose to do so for their own reasons.

The question here is whether Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome (a.k.a. a pope) and whether he was the first one.

It is not about papal supremacy. The pope need not have held the title supreme leader of the Church. Maybe he was merely first among equals (as the Eastern Orthodox have it even today). It just doesn't matter as far as this thread is concerned.

 

[Albion]

The question here is whether Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome (a.k.a. a pope) and whether he was the first one.

Is it? I think that the wording there immediately raises a more fundamental question that has to be dealt with before anything else can follow. Did being the bishop of Rome make Peter (or anyone else in the first century or two) a "Pope" in the sense that we later came to think of that position and title?

It is not about papal supremacy.

It is to the extent that "Pope" in Western history incorporates the idea of supremacy.

The pope need not have held the title supreme leader of the Church. Maybe he was merely first among equals (as the Eastern Orthodox have it even today). It just doesn't matter as far as this thread is concerned.

Possibly, but I think the wording of the OP indicates more than that.

 

[Dracula]

Is it? I think that the wording there immediately raises a more fundamental question that has to be dealt with before anything else can follow. Did being the bishop of Rome make Peter (or anyone else in the first century or two) a "Pope" in the sense that we later came to think of that position and title?

It is to the extent that "Pope" in Western history incorporates the idea of supremacy.


Possibly, but I think the wording of the OP indicates more than that.[/QUOTE]

In which case I think the question would've been something like "Did Peter, as Bishop, ever exercise the same powers that contemporary popes exercise?".

But to me the title or the OP do not seem to ask that. There's nothing that suggests that the Bishop of Rome should necessarily be supreme or infallible or anything else. For our purposes, I need only worry about whether Peter was ever Bishop of Rome, nothing else. Whatever the title "bishop of Rome" (or pope) means and whatever powers the holder of the title is thought to be able to exercise.

 

[Albion]

It is to the extent that "Pope" in Western history incorporates the idea of supremacy.

Possibly, but I think the wording of the OP indicates more than that.

In which case I think the question would've been something like "Did Peter, as Bishop, ever exercise the same powers that contemporary popes exercise?".

Well, I guess we will just have to live with the competing theories unless a clarification of the OP shows up.

I need only worry about whether Peter was ever Bishop of Rome, nothing else.

All right.

For me, that's not a particularly intriguing question.

 

[boogalaboogala]

no peter was not the first pope.. infact when Jesus said that He would build His church on this rock, and the gates of haydes would not over take it. He was refering to the true church.. the body of Christ(the bride of Christ).. He was not talking about the catholic church or any denomination for that matter.. and when He said He would build His church on this rock. He is refering to the foundation that the true temple rests on.. Jesus being the cornerstone, the apostles being the foundation, and us the church resting or be built on them.. peter is the one that Jesus questioned three times in the book of john.. asking him if he loved Jesus.. and each time when he said you know i do, Lord.. Jesus kept replying, "feed my sheep". peter went to the jews and paul went to the gentiles.. the roman catholics are not the jews..
also peter was martyred in 67AD.
constantine the great, 272AD-337AD was the first man to call himself vicarius christi or the vicar of Christ.. that would make him the very first pope.. all popes call themselves vicarius christi. which means in the place of Christ.. i just wanna point out here that no one can take the place of Christ..
here is a bit of trivia.. vicarius christi translated back to the original greek actually translates to the words anti-christ.. research it. you will be as shocked as i was..