Was Peter the 1st Pope?

[Andyk1987]

Was Peter the 1st Pope? Some Catholics think Peter was the 1st Pope, but how come James at the Council of Jerusalem had more authority? Surely if he was the 1st Pope he would have had more authority and the final say.

What do you think on this topic?

 

[William Putnam]

Was Peter the 1st Pope? Some Catholics think Peter was the 1st Pope, but how come James at the Council of Jerusalem had more authority? Surely if he was the 1st Pope he would have had more authority and the final say.

What do you think on this topic?

A very interesting topic indeed, one which I have dealt with before.

If you study Acts 15:1-12, it is quite obvious who is the dominant figure here, one who has taken command with authority, Peter.

But from verses 13 through 21, we suddenly see James being quite authoritative himself here, but please note on a quite different problem, even while it is related to the question of non-Jewish Christians and the old Mosaic laws. Must they observe them or not?

My Catholic NAB has a very interesting note on this passage that is an interesting read:

Some scholars think that this apostolic decree suggested by James, the immediate leader of the Jerusalem community, derives from another historical occasion than the meeting in question. This seems to be the case if the meeting is the same as the one related in Gal 2:1-10. According to that account, nothing was imposed upon Gentile Christians of mixed communities to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols and from bloodmeats, and to avoid marriage within forbidden decrees of consanguinity and affinity (Lv 18), all these practices were especially abhorrent to Jews. Luke seems to have telescoped two originally independent incidents here: the first a Jerusalem " council" that dealt with the question of circumcision, and the second a Jerusalem decree dealing with Gentile observance of dietary laws (see Acts 21:25) where Paul seems to be learning of the decree for the first time. (underlining emphasis mine.)

Here is some further interesting scripture areas where Peter is seen as the leader:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ112.HTM

And here is what the early church fathers had to say about Peter:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[Philip]

Was Peter the 1st Pope?

Define 'pope'? Do you mean 'leader of the Apostles'? Bishop of Rome? Or do you refer to the papacy as it exists today?

 

[William Putnam]

Define 'pope'? Do you mean 'leader of the Apostles'? Bishop of Rome? Or do you refer to the papacy as it exists today?

"Pope" or simply papa or papam in Latin, means "father" and is a title, in that form, restricted to the Bishop of Rome. At one time, all of the principal bishops of large sees, went by the title of "pope," but it was later on restricted to the Bishop of Rome. (The Orthodox still use use the term for some of their biships, I understand.)

Had Peter remained in Antioch, he would have remained as that city's bishop, but instead, he came to Rome and established his see there, per the history as given by the early fathers.

And the one who succeeds Peter as bishop of Rome, became the current bishop of Rome, and thus was given the title of "pope." As for Peter being in a leadership position, I think I have given adequate coverage on that already...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Rome has spoken, case is closed.
Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland.

Here is another take on what happened: http://atheism.about.com/od/popesandthepapacy/a/peterpope.htm

David.

 

[William Putnam]

From Finland.

Here is another take on what happened: http://atheism.about.com/od/popesandthepapacy/a/peterpope.htm

David.

I like my evidence better!

I see the argument given is like the one where a person may disagree that the body of the person buried in the grave with the epitaph, "Abraham Lincoln" is not that person, and that no evidence with ever be good enough to convince him, even DNA evidence!

And certainly the documentatiion of Peter being in Rome, let alone in a leadership position, is taken as pure "Catholic Church spin."

Read Clement's Letter to the Corinthians and note the leadership role of the Bishop of rome "interfering" in the affairs of the Church in Corinth, circa A.D. 97. Clement is the third successor to Peter as biship of Rome, where it certainly was inportant for the church to operate from, it being the "political center of influence" as it certainly was. And it is perfectly obvious to this Catholic Why Peter would go there to establish the central see of the Church.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[Andyk1987]

How can Peter be the Pope? The Catholic Church only said he was a few hundred years ago.

 

[Philip]

How can Peter be the Pope? The Catholic Church only said he was a few hundred years ago.

Catholics would disagree.

 

[William Putnam]

How can Peter be the Pope? The Catholic Church only said he was a few hundred years ago.

Well, ah, perhaps you should read the following:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

And note the dates given.

They are just a bit more then a "few hundred years ago."

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[moses916]

the split between Orthodoxy and Catholocism took place in 1051 AD

 

[William Putnam]

the split between Orthodoxy and Catholocism took place in 1051 AD

Your point is????

Yes, I know of the unfortunate occurrance circa A.D. 1051, but the dispute preceded that date for a few hundred years, with some splitting off and reconsiliations in that time frame.

One of these days, come, holy Spirit, these two great churches will be reunited once again!



God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

- Anima Christi -
Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

[S Walch]

And here is what the early church fathers had to say about Peter:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

Got anything from before 200 A.D about Peter being labeled as the Main man at rome?

 

[Albion]

Was Peter the 1st Pope? Some Catholics think Peter was the 1st Pope, but how come James at the Council of Jerusalem had more authority? Surely if he was the 1st Pope he would have had more authority and the final say.

What do you think on this topic?

He was not called "Pope." That didn't occur for about 400 more years.

He didn't have the powers that the Roman Catholic Church of more recent times atttributes to the Pope and all the previous bishops of Rome. Most of those administrative powers were added to this bishop later on.

The Early Church Fathers disagree with each other on the subject, with many saying that Peter and his successors didn't have more authority than Paul, James, or in some cases, John.

There is almost no evidence from the first century to indicate that Christians viewed the bishop of Rome as any Pope figure. The letter of Clement is about all there is, and it only shows the bishop of Rome giving advice to Christians outside his diocese. That doesn't prove much more than that he gave advice.

There is nothing in scripture to indicate that Jesus intended for there to be any position like this. He did say something to Peter, we know, but the commission he gave him does not necessarily refer to ongoing leadership of the Church. Even if it did, there is absolutely nothing in scripture that indicates that this power could be transferred to anyone else (the Papal line).

So, on balance, there is no reason to think of Peter as a Pope.

 

[zaire]

Apostolic succesion or 'Head of the Church' succession starting with Peter is flase.

The word of God is are guide to follow. And in the Bible we dont see anything about there being succession from Peter, so we should dismiss it as false.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[William Putnam]

Got anything from before 200 A.D about Peter being labeled as the Main man at rome?

Oh, how so very convenient!

The older you go, the less physical evidence you will find, that will, of course, have you deny the testimony of what writings we have that at least are beyond the cut-off date you conveniently throw-up, or as I have heard before, the early church fathers were all liars!

What of writings that are at last 50 or even 100 years after A.D. 200? Not good enough for you, I presume...????

Sad........

Before you know it, you can even deny that the body in the grave that has the epataph of Abraham Lincoln is not that man, DNA evidence not withstanding!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.
He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.
I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
- The Apostles Creed -

 

[William Putnam]

Apostolic succesion or 'Head of the Church' succession starting with Peter is flase.

And you determined that by?????????????????????

The word of God is are guide to follow. And in the Bible we dont see anything about there being succession from Peter, so we should dismiss it as false.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Indeed! Holy scripture is "useful" as it says, just as the Constitution of the United States is "useful" for studying U.S. Government.

That does not, of course, mean that the Constitution is the sole source for such determination, does it?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Blest be God.
Blest be his holy name.
Blest be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
Blest be the name of Jesus.
Blest be his most sacred heart.
Blest be his most precious blood.
Blest be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar.
Blest be the Holy Spirit, the Consoler.
Blest be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy.
Blest be her holy and immaculate conception.
Blest be her glorious assumption.
Blest be the name of Mary, virgin and mother.
Blest be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Blest be God in his angels and in his saints.
- The Divine Praises -

 

[zaire]

I'll trust the Bible rather than what some men have claimed to be true. We can never be 100% sure that what men say is deffently correct. We can be sure the Bible is correct.

 

[S Walch]

Oh, how so very convenient!

The older you go, the less physical evidence you will find, that will, of course, have you deny the testimony of what writings we have that at least are beyond the cut-off date you conveniently throw-up, or as I have heard before, the early church fathers were all liars!

What of writings that are at last 50 or even 100 years after A.D. 200? Not good enough for you, I presume...????

No, not what I'm saying.

If they're getting there reasoning for Peter being the first Pope, or head of the Church , one must ask how far from peter's life to his death are people mentioning him as being the head of all the churches or a "pope".

Is there anything from before 200 A.D about Peter being considered as being the sole leader of the Church at it's head?

If not, then where are their idea's coming from about the Pope and Peter?

 

[Albion]

No, not what I'm saying.

If they're getting there reasoning for Peter being the first Pope, or head of the Church , one must ask how far from peter's life to his death are people mentioning him as being the head of all the churches or a "pope".

Is there anything from before 200 A.D about Peter being considered as being the sole leader of the Church at it's head?

If not, then where are their idea's coming from about the Pope and Peter?

No, there is virtually nothing from the early times to indicate that Peter was a Pope figure. As mentioned, the bishop of Rome, Clement, wrote a letter to Christians outside of his diocese but that could be interpreted many ways, and certainly not necessarily that they say him as any kind of Pope.

The verse in Matthew is cited but it doesn't say anything about the Papacy...and it was not used by the bishops of Rome to promote Papal claims until several hundred years after Christ.

Any unbiased reading of all the available material indicates that the Papal office is something that evolved as the bishops of Rome tried to replace the leadership that the Emperors of the Roman world had once held.

You are right to discern that, as historical research goes, those who write long after the events in question are more likely to be affected by what has been thought about those events since their occurance than those close to the action.

 

[Jay2004]

I'll trust the Bible rather than what some men have claimed to be true. We can never be 100% sure that what men say is deffently correct. We can be sure the Bible is correct.

I you sure you have the correct understanding of the bible.
After all it was written by members of the holy catholic church
wouldn't they have the best understanding?