Was Peter the 1st Pope?

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

He spoke at a later time, therefore claims about what the Church did from the beginning cannot rest on him. .

They do not rest on Ignatius, someone had stated that the papacy didn't start until middle ages or something. I was demonstrating that that is entirely incorrect.

You want to know, how we see this played out in history. Notice progression of thought.

Ignatius of Antioch
Ignatius refers only to Rome as the presider among all the other churches he writes to and mentions,(Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]). And we see the exercise of authority of the See of Rome to a church in another country during apostolic times. So as we read the chronology of thought, Rome is synonymous with Peter's chair.

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Cyprian
​

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Canon III 2nd Nicaen ecumenical council 381.
THE Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome.
It should be remembered that the change effected by this canon did not affect Rome in any way, they did seriously affect Alexandria and Antioch, which till then had ranked next after the see of Rome. When the pope refused to acknowledge the authority of this canon, he was in reality defending the principle laid down in the canon of Nice, that in such matters the ancient customs should continue.

Cyril of Jerusalem
​

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

The ancient record is full of instances of the acknoledgment. If you want more, I got 'em.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[Albion]

They do not rest on Ignatius, someone had stated that the papacy didn't start until middle ages or something. I was demonstrating that that is entirely incorrect.

Well, we agree then that the Papacy did not originate in the Middle Ages! That being so, however, does not make an equally erroneous claim--that it was from the beginning--any more correct.

You want to know, how we see this played out in history. Notice progression of thought.

Ignatius of Antioch
Ignatius refers only to Rome as the presider among all the other churches he writes to and mentions,(Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Notice that date. You earlier tried to make his birthdate (ca. AD 50) the standard. In fact, by the time he said what he did about the Roman bishop, it was already into the second century of Christian history. The issue is not that the Papacy is old, but whether it is from the beginning.

And we see the exercise of authority of the See of Rome to a church in another country during apostolic times

. So as we read the chronology of thought, Rome is synonymous with Peter's chair.

Based upon the words you have presented to us from Clement, that observation you just made is incorrect. Clement offers advice, but there is nothing in it that: 1) shows us that the recipients recognized any special authority in him, or 2) that Clement is claiming to be the leader of Christians in other countries. Giving advice does not mean that he had any authority outside his diocese.

Clement of

Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all,founded andorganized at Romeby the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

This is not Apostolic. The date for this is a century and a half after the beginning of the Church!

Commentators from this period and later are reflecting views that had grown up AFTER the Apostolic Age.

Cyprian

​

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Canon III 2nd Nicaen ecumenical council 381.
THE Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome.
It should be remembered that the change effected by this canon did not affect Rome in any way, they did seriously affect Alexandria and Antioch, which till then had ranked next after the see of Rome. When the pope refused to acknowledge the authority of this canon, he was in reality defending the principle laid down in the canon of Nice, that in such matters the ancient customs should continue.

Cyril of Jerusalem






​

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Again, these words do not show us the Church of the Apostolic Age. All they show us is the Church as it changed later on. With these people we have spokesmen who lived as much as 300 years after Christ--more than the whole history of the United States.

The ancient record is full of instances of the acknoledgment. If you want more, I got 'em.

Your brother in Christ.

Yes, but it is not the "ancient record" that establishes how the first Christians thought and believed and operated in this regard. The "ancient" period went until ca. AD 500! We are concerned with the Apostolic Church, not the Ancient Church, and it shows us NO evidence of Papal Supremacy.

BTW, when you give us more quotes, be sure to give the quotes in which Early Church Fathers, such as Cyprian, DENOUNCED the Roman bishop's claims to universal leadership.

Selective quotes that are used to prove one side of an argument while ignoring what else these speakers said prove nothing.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Well, we agree then that the Papacy did not originate in the Middle Ages!

Notice that date. You earlier tried to make his birthdate (ca. AD 50) the standard.

I was simply demonstrating that he was borne in the Apostolic period.

In fact, by the time he said what he did about the Roman bishop, it was already into the second century of Christian history.

It was 110 A.D. The last Apostle, John, died only a few years before. In fact Ignatius was taught at the feet of the Apostle John.
Additionally, Clement was Pope during the Apostolic period.
There were, in fact five Popes during the Apostolic period.
St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
BTW, Your religion didn't even start until the 16th century and you are quibbling about 10 years?

it shows us NO evidence of Papal Supremacy.

Ah! That's why you can't find it. The term is primacy, not supermacy. It is Peterine primacy that you should be researching. Anyway, I'm outa' here.
Good Luck.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[Albion]

I was simply demonstrating that he was borne in the Apostolic period.

I understand that, but we are discussing the faith of the Apostolic Church. Ignatius' comments that you cited came from AFTER the close of the Apostolic Church and therefore don't tell us anything relevant.

Additionally, Clement was Pope during the Apostolic period.

He was the bishop of Rome during the Apostolic Period. However, the only piece of evidence we have--or that you used--was a letter from him in which he offered advice to Christians outside his diocese. That is not unusual, but it doesn't prove a thing about a Papacy.

In sum, with Ignatius you have a meaningful comment about the see of Peter, but not from the Apostolic Church, and with Clement you have the right time period but the letter doesn't deal with our topic. So, you don't prove anything with either of those.

There were, in fact five Popes during the Apostolic period.
St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)

What you mean to say is that there were five bishops of Rome during this period. We are still discussing if there was a Papacy.

BTW, Your religion didn't even start until the 16th century and you are quibbling about 10 years?

We'll discuss "my religion" if you want...at some other time. Right now, it is the Papacy we are examining. But it is not 10 years we are looking at; it is the whole of the First Century. There is no evidence that the Church had any idea of a Papacy during that period; the notion was a later theory that the bishops of Rome successfully imposed upon a part of the Church only by the fourth century. It's not an Apostolic doctrine.

The term is primacy, not supermacy. It is Peterine primacy that you should be researching.

Both terms are in use. Which are you interested in? If it is primacy, that doesn't mean the bishop of Rome having any jurisdiction outside his diocese.

Do you want to have us agree to that? OK, honor to the bishop of Rome but he's not the leader of the Church Universal.

But if it is supremacy that you are interested in debating--and I thought that was exactly it--then you have failed to show that it was the faith of the Apostolic Church. More importantly, the Papacy claims supremacy, so that is a necessary part of what "Was Peter the first Pope?" means. I'm more than willing to agree that the bishop of Rome is one of the more important bishops of the world (primacy, honor), just not properly in charge of anything beyond his diocese (Papacy).

 

[Franze]

Of Course, he was, Jesus called him like for continuing his labour in earth and forever until his second come, in the NT are. It´s enough clear.

 

[Albion]

Of Course, he was, Jesus called him like for continuing his labour in earth and forever until his second come, in the NT are. It´s enough clear.

It's clear enough that Christ called him to be the one to first reach the wider world with the message of the Gospel. We all know that this was done on Pentecost. I'ts clear enough that he was one of the most important of the Apostles and probably was the first bishop of Antioch, and later, Rome. It's clear that Rome was a location of importance because of its wealth and governmental importance. The "Pope" part remains a theory and, more to the point, a theory that only developed many years later.

 

[sojourner]

Albion,

But if it is supremacy that you are interested in debating--and I thought that was exactly it--then you have failed to show that it was the faith of the Apostolic Church. More importantly, the Papacy claims supremacy, so that is a necessary part of what "Was Peter the first Pope?" means. I'm more than willing to agree that the bishop of Rome is one of the more important bishops of the world (primacy, honor), just not properly in charge of anything beyond his diocese (Papacy).

In reading the latter part of this thread to this point, I think, you are confused, Albion. The word "supremacy" will not be found in the early Church or even in the first 600 possibly. The concept of Primacy is the foundation on which Rome eventually attempted to force Supremacy. That process took 600 years and when Rome continually failed to make the other Sees see their point they eventually separated over this issue primarily.
What I think you are trying to prove or show is that the Seat of Peter or Supremacy did not exist until many centuries later. History clearly confirms this. What it also confirms within the Roman See even after they separated from the Church in roughly 1054, did not solidify until the council of Trent. Most bishops under the Roman Patriarch (pope) did not recognize the pope as POPE as we know and understand the term today or that the Papacy existed.
The Papacy is conterminous with the Roman See becoming the Roman Catholic Church. It just did not exist before that point in reality. It was an argument of how much authority would be granted by virtue of the concept of Primacy. The Church said very little, while Rome for the latter 2 or 3 hundred years before the split said it should be Supreme. Two totally different concepts and understandings.
It should also be obvious historically, that the Church never had a POPE, because to this day, it (the Orthodox) still does not have one. It does not even have a central organization of any kind.

 

[angela 2]

I remember reading somewhere that the councils and the popes of the first few centuries vied for authority over one another. Is that true?

 

[sojourner]

angela2,

I remember reading somewhere that the councils and the popes of the first few centuries vied for authority over one another. Is that true?

First, the word pope does not come until the 4th century.
Then it was not so much the Councils and the Roman pope that were at odds because they never met to discuss the issue. It was primarily the other Patriarchs that did not go along with the way the Roman See was attempting to claim Supremacy. Or to have a central figure and to destroy the conciliar and episcople form which was in use.

The other fact one must keep in mind is that when you see or read the word pope it is not referring to the POPE during the first 1000 years. The POPE and the Papacy only exists in the Roman Catholic Church, never existed in the Church of the first 1000 years. The concept still does not exist in the Orthodox Church even today.

 

[BigNorsk]

Peter was not the first Pope. While Peter sinned and did wrong, he was always quick to repent, a characteristic that is incompatible with a church that refuses to repent even when it's teachings are sinful.

We see Peter who so honored God that he did not want to be crucified the same way as Jesus, he would have never aproved of taking the name of God for the Pope. For we pray to our Father in heaven and the Bible tells us to call noone on Earth our Father, for we have but one spiritual Father, our Father in Heaven. Yet we see the Pope taking God's name for himself.

There is also the question of apostolic succession. As far as I know, the only potential example of that is Matthias' replacement of Judas as one of the twelve. But Matthias didn't become an apostle as a result of the drawing of lots, he already was an apostle. And even if you don't agree with that, you must notice that none other than Peter quoted the requirements for the replacement. The replacement had to have been with them since Jesus' baptism and he must have seen the risen Saviour. So unless the Pope is really really old, he doesn't meet the requirements to be an apostle.

Marv

 

[sttrattus]

I don't think so, but he was the statement wher Jesus founded his church!

The Christ!

 

[sttrattus]

who knows!

 

[Albion]

Albion, In reading the latter part of this thread to this point, I think, you are confused, Albion. The word "supremacy" will not be found in the early Church or even in the first 600 possibly. The concept of Primacy is the foundation on which Rome eventually attempted to force Supremacy. That process took 600 years and when Rome continually failed to make the other Sees see their point they eventually separated over this issue primarily. What I think you are trying to prove or show is that the Seat of Peter or Supremacy did not exist until many centuries later. History clearly confirms this.

I'm not finding any confusion so far.

Most bishops under the Roman Patriarch (pope) did not recognize the pope as POPE as we know and understand the term today or that the Papacy existed.

That's right.

It should also be obvious historically, that the Church never had a POPE, because to this day, it (the Orthodox) still does not have one. It does not even have a central organization of any kind.

A worthwhile point to make, although I of course do not identify the whole Church with just the Eastern partriarchates any more than I do with the bishop of Rome.

 

[88Devin07]

Give us the reasons you believe he was the first pope...

 

[Diane_Windsor]

The RCC cannot produce credible evidence to support their claim about Peter, the papacy, etc., therefore; I reject their claim.

Diane

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (called Pope in Latin), but he NEVER acted authorativly over the other Apostles... in fact he was rebuked by Paul.

Paul was added to the Church at Damascus, at the headquarter of the Antiochian Church before Peter came there. Paul recieved his baptism and training from the Antiochian Church, without Peters knowledge. Paul did not recieve instruction from Peter.

James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the first Church.

All the Apostles acted as equals in the book of ACTS... as can be easily seen by the language used.... WE, OUR, US..... James was in charge of the council meeting soley because he was the Bishop of the Church at Jerusalem... this in no way belittles the other Apostles....

They acted as equals in council... otherwise why have a council? It would only take a decree from the ruling Bishop....

Christ is Risen!

Forgive me....

 

[Faachibo]

Jesus gave Peter the keys to the church! jesus said to Peter that upon this rock you will build my (Jesus') church; hint hint - the Catholic church

- something along those lines

Main Point : Jesus gave (Simon i think aka Peter ) Peter the power of leadership of the church. He Was the First pontif!

 

[Albion]

Jesus gave Peter the keys to the church! jesus said to Peter that upon this rock you will build my (Jesus') church; hint hint - the Catholic church

- something along those lines

Main Point : Jesus gave (Simon i think aka Peter ) Peter the power of leadership of the church. He Was the First pontif!

Hi, Faachibo.

Glad to have you with us, but sorry that you had to start with something that needs to be corrected.

Jesus gave Peter a commission, the keys, not the 'power of leadership of the church' as such. You need to consider that being given a responsibility does not mean 'power of leadership,' just an assignment of importance--that's what Jesus told Peter.

There is no place in scripture--the source of your information, since there is no other recording of the converstaion--in which Peter is described as the leader, and there are several places recorded in which some other Apostle was leading.

If Peter were the "first pontiff," why didn't any bishop of Rome claim this power or position for generations afterwards? Why didn't the church know of such a thing, if it were as you say?

The "Catholic Church" is a term that originated not in the Bible or with Jesus, but in the second century. It referred to all those who hold the true Apostolic faith. It was not a term referring to any particular denomination, neither the Roman Catholic Church of later times, nor any other one.

Hope this helps.