Was Peter the 1st Pope?

[zaire]

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?

The Roman Catholic church didnt write the Bible.

And even if they had amazing understanding of it then there still nothing to back up 'Apostolic succesion'.

 

[NewToLife]

And even if they had amazing understanding of it then there still nothing to back up 'Apostolic succesion'.

Whilst I agree with you that scripture does not bear witness to the idea of a Papacy I have to point out that any unbiased reading of scripture does indeed back up the reality of apostolic succession. In fact I would assert that all rightful bishops bear authority transmitted by apostolic succession.

The case for the Papacy does not fall on the idea that St Peter was not indeed the leader of the apostles, clearly he was the leader and the twelve were the heart of the Jerusalem church. With St Peter's preaching on Pentecost it is even right to recognise that the church was indeed built on him and continues to be built upon those who make the confession that he made. However scripture shows us that St Peter's role altered as the Church developed, particularly with the foundation of other Churches. It also paints a picture of St Peter as having a roving ministry ( similar in nature to St Paul's ). These men were not bishops, rather they were apostles who appointed bishops to care fo the local churches, they themselves were not tied to local churches however, this is borne out in the New Testament itself. We have no evidence to support the idea that the role of apostle was transmitted to successors, indeed with the death of St James we clearly see that no successor was appointed in this case, it is also quite clear that this role was quite distinct from the role of bishop.

St Peter has no successors, except in the sense that all true Bishops are his successors and sit, as it were, on the chair of St Peter whose promises they inherit on behalf of the Church and by virtue of their similar confession of faith.

 

[Albion]

Whilst I agree with you that scripture does not bear witness to the idea of a Papacy I have to point out that any unbiased reading of scripture does indeed back up the reality of apostolic succession. In fact I would assert that all rightful bishops bear authority transmitted by apostolic succession.

I have to say that this is another example of finding in Scripture what one has already been told is there to find. There is nothing at all in Scripture about Apostolic Succession. What you are referring to appears to be the evidence of one clergyman (as we might call him for purposes of neutrality in language) commissioning another. But that happens in every church, even those which don't believe in Apostolic Succession. Apostolic Succession is a theory about the meaning of the ordaining of one man by another--and this is not in Scripture. If you want to contend that all of today's bishops and other ministers are symbolically united to the Apostles, I'd agree. But the idea of a certain laying on of hands conferring validity to preach and administer the sacraments which other ministers not claiming such a theoretical continuity don't have is not sound.

 

[NewToLife]

I have to say that this is another example of finding in Scripture what one has already been told is there to find.

If your contention is that you are somehow free from the influences of others then I'd have to say that I frankly dont believe you. You are as much a part of a Tradition as I am, whatever the tradition you stand as part of is. I'm honest enough to not try and pretend that Orthodoxy does not colour my readings. To take any other view would be naive.

Apostolic Succession is a theory about the meaning of the ordaining of one man by another--and this is not in Scripture.

By what right do your Bishops claim authority? This is the key question that apostolic succession addresses, it isnt some vague waffle about the meaning of ordination. It's a clearly defined means of answering a very specific question.

 

[Albion]

If your contention is that you are somehow free from the influences of others then I'd have to say that I frankly dont believe you.

That wasn't my contention.

I'm honest enough to not try and pretend that Orthodoxy does not colour my readings. To take any other view would be naive.

Then what's the problem. I merely noted that you do what you just admitted that you do.

There's nothing in the Bible about Apostolic Succession.

By what right do your Bishops claim authority? This is the key question that apostolic succession addresses, it isnt some vague waffle about the meaning of ordination. It's a clearly defined means of answering a very specific question.

Shall I speak for the Anglicans you want to address that to, or to the Anglican bishops who understand the historic role of presbyter/bishops? There is nothing, by the way, in any official Anglican statement that endorses Apostolic Succession, just Episcopal polity.

 

[NewToLife]

Then what's the problem. I merely noted that you do what you just admitted that you do.

The problem is the inate hypocrisy of your attempt to dismiss my view on that basis when you are now admitting that you too are certainly influenced in your reading. People in glass houses really ought not to be throwing stones.

There's nothing in the Bible about Apostolic Succession.

Very much a matter of opinion, just because there is no treatise on apostolic succession is hardly to say that its not present in the bible. No doubt you will not deny the trinity on the same basis?

Shall I speak for the Anglicans you want to address that to, or to the Anglican bishops who understand the historic role of presbyter/bishops? There is nothing, by the way, in any official Anglican statement that endorses Apostolic Succession, just Episcopal polity.

Thanks but I spent plenty of time within Anglicanism so I do not need your help in this area. But as you seem to misunderstand me here, my comment was not addressed to the validity or not of Anglican orders but to the nature of apostolic succession itself which you appear to believe is some fuzzy concept.

 

[zaire]

There's nothing in the Bible about Apostolic Succession

True.

 

[Albion]

The problem is the inate hypocrisy of your attempt to dismiss my view on that basis when you are now admitting that you too are certainly influenced in your reading. People in glass houses really ought not to be throwing stones.

You're shooting in the dark, friend. I have seen both sides of this issue, having belonged to churches that are on both sides. Why not give it a rest and stick to the issues?

There's nothing in the Bible about Apostolic Succession.

Very much a matter of opinion, just because there is no treatise on apostolic succession is hardly to say that its not present in the bible.

Facts are facts. If it were in the Bible, I'm sure you could point to it. All you've done is translate the fact that the church and the early leadership of it commissioned others. That's not "Apostolic Succession" as the term is used and understood.

just because there is no treatise on apostolic succession is hardly to say that its not present in the bible.

Then to be more precise, I should have said that you have not been able to show any trace of it in the Bible.

Thanks but I spent plenty of time within Anglicanism so I do not need your help in this area.

Then you shouldn't have brought it up.

 

[NewToLife]

You're shooting in the dark, friend. I have seen both sides of this issue, having belonged to churches that are on both sides. Why not give it a rest and stick to the issues?

You started this exchange, no point in attempting to make it seem as though i'm doing more than I am. Addressing your unprovoked attack in the first line of post 23. If you cant take a little criticism when you are caught using a double standard then maybe you ought not to ise them.

Facts are facts. If it were in the Bible, I'm sure you could point to it. All you've done is translate the fact that the church and the early leadership of it commissioned others. That's not "Apostolic Succession" as the term is used and understood.

Quite an achievement really to summarize the thoughts of another without ever actually seeing them, only flaw of course is that your guess was incorrect as to my thought process.

Then to be more precise, I should have said that you have not been able to show any trace of it in the Bible.

As i havent actually made any attempt to show this I cannot possibly have failed . That ought to be obvious really.

Then you shouldn't have brought it up.

I didnt, you brought it up in post 25, presumably in response to an imagined attack that was never actually made. If you'd read my last post you'd know this but its pretty obvious that you arent reading them at all except to look for 'attack points'.

 

[Andyk1987]

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

...There is almost no evidence from the first century to indicate that Christians viewed the bishop of Rome as any Pope figure...

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

Many Catholics today see Peter as the first Pope. Are you saying that they are wrong on this matter. Which was my original point.

 

[Albion]

Many Catholics today see Peter as the first Pope. Are you saying that they are wrong on this matter. Which was my original point.

Sorry, I must have answered the wrong part of that OP. Yes, they are wrong.

The Papacy was something that gradually developed over the centuries. With the declaration of infallibility in 1870, we could say that it developed its basic nature for a very long time, until recent years. No bishop of Rome was called a "Pope" until the Leo I, and the famous "proof text" from Matthew that Catholics normally use to show that Jesus can be presumed to have willed a Papacy was not employed for centuries by the bishops of Rome to make the point every Catholic uses today.

The Early Church Fathers spoke against Peter as having a position above all other Apostles in jurisdiction and against the bishops of Rome later on claiming any supremacy. The first century church has virtually no evidence (a single, ambiguous letter) of the Christian communities from Britain to the Middle East acknowledging any universal jurisdiction from the Roman bishop. Yet, in time, and with the fall of Roman political unity, it is not hard to see that the religious leader of the city of Rome could present himself to a world needing unity and leadership as some kind of divinely-intended successor to the Caesars and Apostles both, uniting religious and secular authority under God.

 

[bluemarkus]

no, he was no pope, he was a disciple and an apostle.
that´s what my bibles call him.
my handbook of christian history(handbuch: die geschichte des christentums, ISBN: 3417245680)
sais that the name pontifex (bridgebuilder)
was originally used for the adherents of poseidon/neptun.

the word pope i cannot find in my bible.

greetings

MB

 

[.Mikha'el.]

My father does not believe that he was, but I really do not question the notion.

 

[Jay2004]

The Roman Catholic church didnt write the Bible.

I said "Holy Catholic Church", not "Roman". Which the Roman Catholic church was part. The Protestant denoms were not even in existence..

And even if they had amazing understanding of it then there still nothing to back up 'Apostolic succesion'

No it doesn't, but Holy tradition does, and you know what, it has been passed for 2000years and passed down by the apostles too.

Paul says to keep to your traditions.

You know what, bible alone is a tradition of man as well.

Your going to try to tell me that traditions that dictate how the bible should be translated, which have been passed from generation to generation for 2000years, since Christ himself is wrong, because Luther, Calvin etc.. say so..

Give your head a shake....

 

[Albion]

No it doesn't, but Holy tradition does, and you know what, it has been passed for 2000years

It doesn't answer the question about Popes, however. If it did, the Eastern Orthodox would have one too.

Paul says to keep to your traditions.

No, he says to keep to the traditions that he specifically was referring to in that verse. We cannot presume that any ol tradition, true or false, is to be held to. He also said nothing about Popes or Peter when referring to received traditions.

You know what, bible alone is a tradition of man as well.

If that is your belief. I believe it is revelation. IT says it is revelation and not a human tradition, so if the Bible is to be believed, it follows that it is to be believed to be what it itself testifies are its nature and origin, not something different which we have speculated about.

 

[1lostsheep]

Wasn't there a church before there were the gospels?

 

[Jay2004]

If that is your belief. I believe it is revelation. IT says it is revelation and not a human tradition, so if the Bible is to be believed, it follows that it is to be believed to be what it itself testifies are its nature and origin, not something different which we have speculated about.

Bible alone is a tradition of man period. no where in the Bible does it say "bible alone".

I just have absolut no acceptance of Sola Sciptura because it is very flawed, and was invented by Martin Luther. Before him it has always been scripture and tradition...

 

[St.Augustine]

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?

Peter was not the first Pope and that idea did not develop until the second century. Indeed, the four earliest lists of apostolistic succession begin with James. Read the letter in Acts 15:

Acts 15:22-3 "Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia."

I understand these to show that there was no sort of primacy neither Peter or James.

 

[Albion]

Bible alone is a tradition of man period. no where in the Bible does it say "bible alone".

That's right. And nowhere in the Bible is there any mention of a Trinity or a Pope. We ALL go by ideas and concepts, not whether an exact word is present.

As for the exact phrase "Bible alone" not being in scripture, neither are "Bible and Tradition," "Sacred Tradition," "Holy Tradition," "Bible and Tradition only" or any similar phrase.

 

[1lostsheep]

The word pope is not in the bible and neither is the word trinity, but we believe in the trinity.