P
Pathway2
Guest
does anyone have good evidence for peter being the first pope historical.Did both west and east agreed by the east and west that the pope was a thing?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Historical evidence for Peter being the first pope or Popes in the early church
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
BridgetN
Guest
The Bible is historical evidence, and in the Bible it says that Christ chose Peter as the head of His Church (the pope). Christ began His Church, and when He ascended into Heaven, he left Peter in charge…so undoubtably Peter was the first Pope.
P
Pathway2
Guest
okay. thank you
J
JanetF
Guest
Well, it’s in the Bible and that’s a historical document, so…
P
Pathway2
Guest
I was hoping for more non bible base sources. similar to intercession of the saints
H
hope
Guest
I am curious by what you mean by east and west? I don’t think that the distinction of the East and West as we understand it today had yet developed. I don’t believe there is any secular evidence.
Perhaps this article might help you.
The primacy of Peter (2): historical evidence about the existence of the Apostle Peter in Rome
Perhaps this article might help you.
The primacy of Peter (2): historical evidence about the existence of the Apostle Peter in Rome
P
Pathway2
Guest
so I was saying both the western roman and the eastern Constantine.
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
St Peter’s bones were discovered under the main altar of St Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican.
M
midori
Guest
“Pope” originally was applied to a major bishop or patriarch-- like of Rome or Alexandria-- beginning in the early 3rd century (the 200’s). You first get it applied to the Bishop of Rome with Marcellinus, who reigned from 296-304. And you first get it used in English in c. 950, with Bede’s “Ecclesiastical History of the English People.” So if you’re just looking for the word, you’ll find it used with other people, such as Heraclas of Alexandria, before you find it used with a Bishop of Rome. So what you’re looking for is recognition of the Primacy of Peter-- the first examples of which are going to be things like the Gospels and Acts.
Looking outside Biblical references, you have Tertullian, around AD 220–
and Cyprian, around 251–
Looking outside Biblical references, you have Tertullian, around AD 220–
and Origen, around 248–“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church”
“f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens”
and Cyprian, around 251–
“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 [Peter] 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?”
K
Kei
Guest
East and West don’t exactly disagree on the primacy of Peter, it’s a bit more nuanced.
K
KJW5551
Guest
In scripture Peter is clearly the leader of the apostles. Re-read Acts with this in mind–it becomes abundantly clear.
The office of the Papacy? Not exactly the same in 2018 as it was back then. But Peter’s primacy among the apostles is not to be disputed.
The office of the Papacy? Not exactly the same in 2018 as it was back then. But Peter’s primacy among the apostles is not to be disputed.
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
Pope means father. It is just a title. All early Christians accepted that Peter was the leader of the Apostles, that he was the first Bishop of Rome, was martyred there, along with Paul. The Bishop of Rome, as the Successor of St. Peter, was always considered the Church’s senior bishop. A rivalry developed between Rome and Constantinople as Rome declined and Constantinople grew in importance. This eventually led to the Great Schism between East and West.
J
JanetF
Guest
In that case, you should look into the writings of the early Church Fathers, such as Tertullian, Origen and CyprianI was hoping for more non bible base sources. similar to intercession of the saints
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Remarkably, the earliest church fathers and their writings at least suggest a primacy at Rome rooted in Peter.
Clement of Rome: The Roman church wrote a letter of correction to a distant church (Corinth), and the church was ordered to obey the Roman’s church’s instructions as if written via the Holy Spirit. Clearly, Rome saw itslef as having a universal pastoral responsibility among the churches
Ignatius of Antioch: Among his seven letters to churches and Christians, the one to the Roman church stands apart. He takes a deferential tone and does not issue teaching and commands in the same way he does to other churches. He acknowledges Rome’s foundation in Peter and Paul, and he declares Rome to have the primacy or preeminence “of love” (as many understand to refer to the universal Church, or at least the bond of love).
Irenaeus of Lyons: Clearly singles out Rome as the preeminent church because of its apostolic foundation, and he says ALL other churches must agree with Rome. He proceeds to list the succession of bishops from Peter’s day on to his own day.
Tertullian: Became a heretic by any standard, though his Montanist group first began as a “reform” rigorist movement in the Church. Even then, he knew who the “bishop of bishops” was, as he called the Bishop of Rome.
Cyprian of Carthage: Cyprian often calls Rome the chair of Peter and source of the church unity, and he admits that a primacy was given to Peter – and so Rome has a singular position in the Church.
From other third century writings around the time of Cyprian, we know that the Roman church itself viewed its primacy in terms of its succession from the Apostle Peter.
Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and (of course) the fathers already listed held Peter as the leader of the Apostles and the rock upon which Christ built the church, even if that didn’t exclude other meanings of the “rock” (as early Christians loved to layer spiritual meanings on passages).
Various events in the second and third centuries also reveal Rome’s place as head of the Church. For example, Pope Victor(?) (I think) was the one who sought to excommunicate entire churches in the East – simply because they held a different tradition regarding the date of Easter. No one objected to his authority to do so, but they objected to its practicality.
All of these examples are before AD 300. Pre-Nicea. Pre-Constantine. Rome’s primacy was early, and it was apostolic. It wasn’t late, and it wasn’t political. It was biblical. It was Peter.
And these examples aren’t arbitrary selections. Take Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch: These are among the very few extra-biblical Christians we even have writings from, by the early 2nd century. Other documents, like the Didache, simply don’t deal with such topics, as we shouldn’t expect them to: They were very specific concerns. So how WONDERFUL it is that, in the era of scant Christian writings (compared to the more copious later on in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries), we already clearly see Petrine and Roman primacy!
Clement of Rome: The Roman church wrote a letter of correction to a distant church (Corinth), and the church was ordered to obey the Roman’s church’s instructions as if written via the Holy Spirit. Clearly, Rome saw itslef as having a universal pastoral responsibility among the churches
Ignatius of Antioch: Among his seven letters to churches and Christians, the one to the Roman church stands apart. He takes a deferential tone and does not issue teaching and commands in the same way he does to other churches. He acknowledges Rome’s foundation in Peter and Paul, and he declares Rome to have the primacy or preeminence “of love” (as many understand to refer to the universal Church, or at least the bond of love).
Irenaeus of Lyons: Clearly singles out Rome as the preeminent church because of its apostolic foundation, and he says ALL other churches must agree with Rome. He proceeds to list the succession of bishops from Peter’s day on to his own day.
Tertullian: Became a heretic by any standard, though his Montanist group first began as a “reform” rigorist movement in the Church. Even then, he knew who the “bishop of bishops” was, as he called the Bishop of Rome.
Cyprian of Carthage: Cyprian often calls Rome the chair of Peter and source of the church unity, and he admits that a primacy was given to Peter – and so Rome has a singular position in the Church.
From other third century writings around the time of Cyprian, we know that the Roman church itself viewed its primacy in terms of its succession from the Apostle Peter.
Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and (of course) the fathers already listed held Peter as the leader of the Apostles and the rock upon which Christ built the church, even if that didn’t exclude other meanings of the “rock” (as early Christians loved to layer spiritual meanings on passages).
Various events in the second and third centuries also reveal Rome’s place as head of the Church. For example, Pope Victor(?) (I think) was the one who sought to excommunicate entire churches in the East – simply because they held a different tradition regarding the date of Easter. No one objected to his authority to do so, but they objected to its practicality.
All of these examples are before AD 300. Pre-Nicea. Pre-Constantine. Rome’s primacy was early, and it was apostolic. It wasn’t late, and it wasn’t political. It was biblical. It was Peter.
And these examples aren’t arbitrary selections. Take Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch: These are among the very few extra-biblical Christians we even have writings from, by the early 2nd century. Other documents, like the Didache, simply don’t deal with such topics, as we shouldn’t expect them to: They were very specific concerns. So how WONDERFUL it is that, in the era of scant Christian writings (compared to the more copious later on in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries), we already clearly see Petrine and Roman primacy!
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.