Proof that Peter was Pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg00
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Another non-Catholic scholar, Adolph Harnack, states:
“…to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.” (Adolph Harnack cited in THE SEARCH FOR THE TWELVE APOSTLES by William Stuart McBirnie (Tyndale House, 1988), p. 63)
Click to expand...
From another well-respected Protestant historian, Jaroslav Pelikan:
The martyrdom of both Peter and Paul in Rome…belongs to [Christian] tradition. It has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have even contended that Peter was NEVER in Rome. But the archaeological researches of the Protestant historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullmann, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter’s death in Rome under the emperor Nero.

“The account of Paul’s martyrdom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism.” (THE RIDDLE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM (Abingdon Press, 1959) by Jaroslav Pelikan, p. 36-37)
Click to expand...
Go to Phil’s cite linked to above for many other examples. Only a dolt would contend to the contrary, given the evidence of history cited by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox scholars.
 
Posted by cestusdei:
Again we see the problem of sola scriptura and individual interpretation. Leaving out Tradition and relegating the interpretation of scripture to oneself leaves out a necessary element of the truth. Where did Jesus say: “I came to found 30,000 denominations none of which agree” or “Hey guys look it up in the gospel of John when I am gone”
Click to expand...
The appeal to the legendary 30,000 denominations can get Catholics in trouble as it is based upon the work of Barrett. Barrett can also be “interpreted” as mentioning from hundreds to thousands of denominations of Catholicism. At any rate, it is an appeal to the supposed disunity of non-Cathoic Christians, while ignoring the amount of disunity within the RCC.

I have to ask cestudei, do you think it is wrong to read the Bible without the approval of your local parish. Surely we can’t argue that the Holy Spirit is unable to speak to individuals through the Word that he inspired.

itsjustdave1988 wrote regarding Irenaeus. It is interesting that historians note Irenaeus clearly appeals to the church founded upon Peter AND Paul. Not Peter alone. Was Paul co-Pope?

Citing lists of popes by no means “proves” that Peter was ever bishop of Rome (it is interesting that most lists don’t even start with Peter). One can look in encyclopedias, dictionaries and almanacs and find these same lists.They merely reflect the officially approved list of the RCC (and who it considers an actual pope versus an anti-pope, etc.) as opposed to historical research and evidence.

Again, given the critical importance of the office, if one had never read the NT yet was familiar with the RCC teaching of the papacy, what would one expect to find? One would expect to find clear documentation that the supreme authority of the church rested upon Peter alone. Yet Jesus nor any of the writers of the epistles, including Peter himself, ever make mention of such an office as a sole supreme ruling bishop over the church and the other apostles. If so, Paul would have been making constant appeals to Peter’s authority on matters of dispute.

Surely, if Peter was recognized as the sole head of the church, the apostles would not have been arguing among themselves in Mark 9. They would have known Peter was in charge and there would have been no discussion.

Belief that Peter was the first Pope ultimately comes down to faith and trust in the RCC, as there is no factual, historical proof that Rome had a single presiding bishop in the first century.
 
arcturus…another n-C who thinks he knows more about our faith than we do.

You can say all you want, but there’s only one definitve and authoratative voice among Catholics and that’s the Holy See in Rome. Every Catholic Church does not make up it’s own doctrine as it goes along like the separated brethren do, where the winds of every new doctrine have blown for about 487 years. It doesn’t matter if there’s 38,000 or only 20,000 or a little less different n-C denoms there is still no consistent consensus among you about important issues that make any thinking person skeptical…the “non-denoms” stand as witness against you of this very thing, yet turn around and topple right back into the very same trap. that’s why you have all kinds of odd duck cults springing up that preach bizarre new doctrines (Cases in point: Shepherd’s Chapel and Watman Nee just for example).

Petrine primacy is better documented than you wanna accept and worse you ignore his place in the Council of Jerusalem and the fact that ECF history does maintain that Cephas was indeed in Rome at the time of his death.

Pax vobiscum,

(Good to see you Cestusdei! 👍 )
 
arcturus…another n-C who thinks he knows more about our faith than we do.

You can say all you want, but there’s only one definitve and authoratative voice among Catholics and that’s the Holy See in Rome. Every Catholic Church does not make up it’s own doctrine as it goes along like the separated brethren do, where the winds of every new doctrine have blown for about 487 years. It doesn’t matter if there’s 38,000 or only 20,000 or a little less different n-C denoms there is still no consistent consensus among you about important issues that make any thinking person skeptical…the “non-denoms” stand as witness against you of this very thing, yet turn around and topple right back into the very same trap. that’s why you have all kinds of odd duck cults springing up that preach bizarre new doctrines (Cases in point: Shepherd’s Chapel and Watman Nee just for example).

Petrine primacy is better documented than you wanna accept and worse you ignore his place in the Council of Jerusalem and the fact that ECF history does maintain that Cephas was indeed in Rome at the time of his death.

Pax vobiscum,

(Good to see you Cestusdei! 👍 )
 
LL: Was there an early, bonafide Christian community in Rome, like those in Ephesia, Corinth, Alexandria, et al?

If so, would Christ leave it an “orphan?”

arcturus: Regarding your sincere comment regarding objective research into faith and scripture… At what point does the endeavour reach its objective; when is enough enough? I mean, the subject here has been discussed for 500 years or more by sincere, learned, even holy, people with no resolution in sight.
At some point I have to ask myself, “Did Christ come to Earth to write a book or start centuries of research, or to establish a community of believers (a church) in faith of His salvation?”

Muster up your best succinct reply fellows, because this is important to me. Bottom line.

Thanks,
Jim
 
Arcturus,
Okay how about 5000 denominations? Or 500? The point is they all claim bible alone, but no two of them agree. Sure we have dissent in the Catholic Church, but it is dissent. We can know what the Church says.

Also we can read the bible. But what if my interpretation says that I am the second coming of Jesus? Will you accept that? Others have claimed exactly that. So who decides? If it is the individual that is the same as saying no one.
 
Phil H:
The word pope does not appear in the Holy Bible. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist when Jesus told Peter he was the Rock upon which he built His Church. There is no proof but do we really need any? We know that Peter was the first leader of the Christian/Catholic Church. Why do we concern ourselves in proving or disproving that Peter was the first pope or that the Roman Catholic Church is the only correct church. We should celebrate our faith together instead of bickering over differences that cannot be proven or disproven. Our entire Christianity and salvation is based upon our faith. We cannot prove our faith, the existence of God of the fact that Jesus was the Son of God who died and was resurrected for the New Covenant.
I
Click to expand...
The word ‘Trinity’ isn’t in the bible, either, but I bet you believe in it.

If truth is your quest here are the scriptural answers …

Jesus founded ONE church
[Matt 16:18]

Jesus established an authoritative church
John 8:32; 14:6; 18:37; 18:15-17
1 Tim 3:15

Remember that the bible has authority BECAUSE the church has authority. Remember that the bible is a Catholic book.

Jesus established a visible church
Eph 5:23
John 17:20-23
Acts 4:32
1 Cor 1:10

If it was an invisible church, how would we go to it to resolve issues? It had to be a church that we could go to.

that authority is apostolic
Matt 28:18-19 (all authority is given to Jesus)
John 20:21 (he gives THAT authority to the apostles)
Luke 10:16
John 14:16-17,26; 16:13

that church is infallible on teachings of faith and morals
Acts 8:30-31 (we need a guide … wouldn’t God give us an infallible guide?)
1 John 4:6
1 Peter 1:12

i know what some might be thinking: “that was then, those same apostles aren’t alive today. that authority is gone or no longer necessary.”

apostolic succession
Matt 28:19-20 ("… to the end of the age …")
1 Cor 12:28 (“apostles, prophets, teachers”)
Acts 1:15-26 (filling Judas’s position - he was gone, yet the office remained)
1 Tim 1:18 (Paul passes on authority to Timothy)
1 Cor 4:17 (instruction to respect Timothy - FULL authority)
2 Tim 1: 13-14
2 Tim 2: 2 (4 generations of apostolic succession in this line)
Titus 1:5-7 (appoint elders)
1 Tim 1:3; 4:11-13
2 Tim 1:6 (laying on of hands … to ordain others)
1 Tim 4:14; 5:22

With this knowledge and understanding that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Jesus is authoritative, infallible, and alive through succession … which church would that be?
Only the Catholic Church can trace that visible, authoritative succession back to the first apostles.

(Knowledge gained through the John Martignoni and the Bible Christian Society. Thanks bud, you’ve increased my understand, and more importantly, my faith. biblechristiansociety .com/ ← check out the free tapes)

Each time scriptures lists the apostles (or a subset), who is named first?
How many times is Peter mentioned in the Bible compared to every other apostle combined?

Both of these will be good exercises for you.

Cheers!

michel
 
itsjustdave1988 wrote regarding Irenaeus. It is interesting that historians note Irenaeus clearly appeals to the church founded upon Peter AND Paul. Not Peter alone. Was Paul co-Pope?
Click to expand...
No, Paul was not co-Pope. In the history the Christianity, I don’t remember ever reading the Church of Rome being describes as the See of Paul, do you? It was always the See of Peter, yet Peter and Paul laid the foundation of the Church by their witness and martyrdom.
 
arcturus,
The appeal to the legendary 30,000 denominations can get Catholics in trouble as it is based upon the work of Barrett. Barrett can also be “interpreted” as mentioning from hundreds to thousands of denominations of Catholicism.
Click to expand...
You have obviously not read Barrett’s encyclopedia for yourself. See here:

33,000+ denominations of Protestantism
 
Citing lists of popes by no means “proves” that Peter was ever bishop of Rome (it is interesting that most lists don’t even start with Peter).
Click to expand...
I simply appeal to the evidence of history as presented by historians, just as we do for what we know of Paul after the account described in the Book of Acts, or any other historical person.

Historians look at the evidence and base their understanding of what happened in the past on what the evidence indicates. Secular historians, as well as Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox historians assert that it is clear that Peter was the first pope. It is only absurd polemicists within Protestantism that disagree with other Protestants on the matter, basing their claims not on evidence, but on their biased disbelief. Forgive us for not taking their argument serious. It seems to us that it is just one of a great many number of things that Protestants can’t seem to agree upon.
 
… as opposed to historical research and evidence.
Click to expand...
I cited the works of Protestant and secular historians. If you have evidence that ALL THESE historians are in error, perhaps you can share it with us?
 
40.png
Sanctus:
Phil H–

Actually, a form of it does…Pope=Papa=Father

However, this is not important…the important thing is it wouldn’t matter if it did or didn’t appear in the Bible in any form because that excludes Sacred Tradition from faith. The word “Holy Bible” doesn’t appear in the Holy Bible…except on the cover and on the table of contents–hmm–where did the table of contents come from?

You seem insistent on using “Roman Catholic Church” as if to differentiate between two Churches…there only the Catholic Church, that is, the Rites/Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome–the Successor of St. Peter. Furthermore, Peter did become the first leader of the Catholic Church when Christ gave him the keys to Heaven, the power to bind and loose, then later on breathed on them to receive the Holy Spirit, and commanded Peter to feed His flock and tend His sheep. The traditional “birthday of the Church” is Pentecost. Though I usually don’t usually like to link tracts ad nauseam, it appears you have some major misconception about the origins of the Catholic Faith unfortunately I can’t write as much as I’d like so if you would like some personal reading for edification…

Peter’s Papacy
Peter, The Rock
Authority of the Pope, 1
Authority of the Pope, 2
  1. There is proof–it is found through the Sacred Tradition of the Church and the clear succession and lineage of the Successors of St. Peter…
    List of Popes
It’s amazing when even CNN acknowledges a truth of the Church
  1. Yes we do need it–we know Christ’s (one universal Church) will not be overcome by the powers of Hell and that Church has both the teaching authority of Christ and the power to bind and loose.
  2. Why do we concern ourselves with “proving Peter was the first Pope?” well because it is A.) Easy and B.) An essential part of the Catholic faith.
  3. We also seek to defend the objective truth of Catholicism because we know that the fullness of Truth can be found in the Catholic Church and it is our duty, rather, our command to take that message to all nations.
We should celebrate our similarities…and I look forward to the day that we can all celebrate our Faith (singular). Bickering is not Christian, but apathy about the Truth isn’t either. As a Catholic I am called to charitably called to share my faith with others. I try to walk a fine line between not being rude, but also being completely honest and open.

That’s not what the Catholic Church says…ergo it goes back to the point that every challenge of Catholicism is, at it’s heart, a challenge of the Church’s authority…making it essential to share the Truth of Catholicism.

Grace, What Does it Do?
Is Salvation Assured?
Necessity of Baptism
Authority

The Catholic Faith can be adequately explained using reason. As far as proving Jesus existed, died, and was resurrected–we have to rely on the same things we rely on to prove other historical events happened…written and unwritten history–but as Christians we hold that those are both sacred and inspired/protected.

God Bless,
Click to expand...
However, essentially there is no proof. There is a distinction between the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church was formed by the Roman emperor Constantine in the third century AD. That was 200 years after Jesus’ deatha and resurrection. I am not saying that the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian church. I am tired of seeing comments that it is the only church. As for the Holy Bible you aare correct in your statements but who got together and decided what was to be included and excluded from the Bible? Men guided by God perhaps but men nonetheless.
I am sure that if and when we all get to heaven we may be surprised to see that there are people of many different denominations there with us. I expect to see Roman Catholics there and ofther Catholics who are Christians.
 
However, essentially there is no proof. There is a distinction between the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church was formed by the Roman emperor Constantine in the third century AD.
Click to expand...
Again, your thesis above is contrary to Protestant church historians. The Catholic Church, led by the Bishop of Rome, began in the 1st century. The papacy, according to Protestant historian JND Kelly, is the longest continuous western office beginning with St. Peter.

Before Constantine, in the 3rd century, St. Cyprian of Carthage described the Church in Rome as the “principal Church”, and the Chair of Peter as “the source of sacerdotal unity.” Tertullian said the Church in Rome is “whence our authority derives.” St. Irenaeus, in the 2nd century, said that the Church in Rome, “because of its superior origin” is that Church were “all the faithful must agree.” St. Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch in the 1st century (AD 70-110) said that the Church in Rome “holds the presidency.”

Even Protestant Bible scholars such as F.F. Bruce and Bruce Metzger assert that in the 1st century Church, Peter was the chief apostle. So, the Holy Bible tells us that God established a Church with ONE GUY as the chief steward. That’s how it remains today.

See more here, including quotes from Protestant bible scholars:

**Unity of Command … not just a good idea, but biblically established **
itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2005/03/unity-of-command-not-just-good-idea.html
 
Phil H:
However, essentially there is no proof. There is a distinction between the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church was formed by the Roman emperor Constantine in the third century AD. That was 200 years after Jesus’ deatha and resurrection.
Click to expand...
Proof? Merely stating something does not make it true. Fact is, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church is. The Roman (Western) Catholic Church is one of 23 particular or *sui iuris *Churches in union with the Pope. Rome just happens to be the see over which the Pope presides. The “Roman” Catholic Church was officially founded when Peter established his bishopric there in the mid 1st Century. Constantine had nothing to do with the founding of any Church, unless you believe he did so from his deathbed, since that’s when he converted to Christianity.
Phil H:
I am not saying that the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian church.
Click to expand...
That’s good, since it was established by one of our Lord’s apostles.
Phil H:
I am tired of seeing comments that it is the only church.
Click to expand...
Just because you’re tired of seeing it does not make it false. The Catholic Church was the one true Church established by Jesus Christ himself. Protestant Churches were established by men 1500+ years later.
Phil H:
As for the Holy Bible you aare correct in your statements but who got together and decided what was to be included and excluded from the Bible? Men guided by God perhaps but men nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Men who comprised the authoritative teaching Church established by Christ, which is the pillar and ground of the Truth, against which the Gates of Hell will not prevail.
Phil H:
I am sure that if and when we all get to heaven we may be surprised to see that there are people of many different denominations there with us. I expect to see Roman Catholics there and ofther Catholics who are Christians.
Click to expand...
The Church fully embraces the idea that under certain circumstance those who are not members might be saved, since with God nothing is impossible. However, Jesus set up his Church to be the normative means of salvation.
 
In 107 AD Ignatius said “where Jesus Christ is there is the CATHOLIC Church”. Jesus founded the Catholic Church not Constantine. We had already been there for almost 300 years. How old is your church? Which is it? I will tell you who founded it and when.

The men you speak of who canonized the Bible were all Catholic men. They were our Popes and Bishops. Thanks for trusting them to pick the books we call the Bible. It is wonderful you place such trust in the Catholic Church.
 
40.png
LittleLes:
Actually, if you read the accounts of the Confession of Peter in both Mark (from whom Matthew copied) and Luke, Jesus says nothing about founding a church or Peterine primacy.

Matthew is alone in these claims. Do you suppose the founding of a church addition and Peterine primacy addition was an embellishment? Or could it have been an addition by a later copyist? When is the first time it was referred to by a “successor of Peter” or an early Church Father?:confused:

LittleLes
Click to expand...
You make it sound like the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (John does not address this however) are for some reason disconnected from one another. Even though they were writing to different communities with different styles they were all saying the same thing and had as their guide the same Holy Spirit who prompted them to include or not include certain events. Eusebius speaks of the succession of Bishops to Peter at Rome several times and indicates that this record of succession was something very important to those early Christians.
 
Jim wrote:
At some point I have to ask myself, “Did Christ come to Earth to write a book or start centuries of research, or to establish a community of believers (a church) in faith of His salvation?”
Click to expand...
Christ’s immediate and primary purpose was to reconcile us to God. Our salvation is through Him. The Bible makes this plain. Over the centuries, in the RCC, salvation through Christ has become replaced with salvation through the Church (Pope Boniface in his Unam Sanctum crystalized this when he proclaimed that it is “altogether necessary” to be in submission to the Roman Pontiff to have salvation). Nowhere does Paul write that faith in ”the Church” is what brings us salvation.

So now, instead of faith being defined as a living, vital relationship with Christ Himself, it has become subtly transformed into faith being defined as the doctrines, creeds, rules and regulations one abides by. Hence, in the RCC, even if one has faith in Christ as his savior, one can be damned by rejecting a doctrine such as the Assumption of Mary, which has no scriptural basis. Jesus said that He came that we might have life, and have it abundantly. He did not claim that He came so we would eventually understand that we are under the authority of a church and whatever rules and doctrines it might develop centuries down the road.

Cetusdei:
Arcturus,
Okay how about 5000 denominations? Or 500? The point is they all claim bible alone, but no two of them agree. Sure we have dissent in the Catholic Church, but it is dissent. We can know what the Church says.
Click to expand...
Also we can read the bible. But what if my interpretation says that I am the second coming of Jesus? Will you accept that? Others have claimed exactly that. So who decides? If it is the individual that is the same as saying no one.
Click to expand...
True unity in Christ cuts across denominational boundaries. True Christians can find themselves welcome at any church where the gospel is being preached and lived. The differences between the vast majority of Protestant denominations are miniscule as they all adhere to the doctrines of the Nicene Creed. On the other hand, the unity that is typically spoke of in the RCC is a unity that is based upon “we are all in the same big tent.” Even if RCs vehemently disagree about this teaching or that teaching, the fact that the dissenters are still physically contained inside that big tent represents “unity.”

As far as who decides whether you are the second coming, I would say it is plain from the scriptures that you are probably not. Your direction of argumentation is based upon the idea that the scriptures for the most part are not self-revealing or that they cannot be “interpreted” without the help of an “infallible” teaching “magisterium.”

The argument basically states that fallible men should not be allowed to interpret scriptural text, and then claims that that is the province of a church, the RCC. Well, who makes up the RCC? Something beyond mere men? Gods? Of course not. Men! Fallible men. So it only comes down to, whose interpretation is correct? These men over here, or those men over there?

The final arbiter, the final authority of our rule of faith has to be the scriptures themselves. We have no source available to us higher than the Word of God.That is what Jesus, our ultimate role model, appealed to when debating with the Pharisees and Sadducees. The apostles referred to the scriptures as did the early church fathers in the same way. Now, are there going to be disagreements and misinterpretations? Obviously. But whose fault is that? The Holy Spirit-inspired Word of God’s fault?

But I think this thread started asking for historical proofs of Peter being bishop of Rome and we digress. Is Greg00 satisfied with all the evidence?
 
40.png
LittleLes:
Hi Vern,

Not really. This old saw ignores the following:

(1) It is questionable whether Peter actually wrote 1 Peter, but if he did, obviously he did so before his death in 64 - 67 A.D.

(2) The “code word” Babylon meaning Rome first appears in Revelation written about 95 A.D. See the problem?🙂
Click to expand...
Let me get this straight:
  1. If Peter wrote 1 Peter, he obviously did so before his death in 64-67 AD.
  2. Revelation was written about 95 AD.
  3. Do you say 95 AD is BEFORE 64-67 AD?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
quote=LittleLes But most significant, Babylon on the Euphrates was a thriving Jewish colony at that time. In fact, after the destruction of Jerusalem, it became more or less the center of Jewish life. Hence, its just where Peter, the Apostle to the Circumcised, was likely to be.!😃
[/quote]
  1. Jerusalem was destryed in 70 AD
  2. Peter died as you say, in 64-67 AD.
  3. So Peter went to Babylon AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem, to join the “thriving Jewish colony” there?
 
He who hears you hears me:ehh: Jesus:eek: That doesn’t fly with your statement.Not you Vern the poster before you;)
 
40.png
arcturus:
arcturus: Regarding your sincere comment regarding objective research into faith and scripture… At what point does the endeavour reach its objective; when is enough enough? I mean, the subject here has been discussed for 500 years or more by sincere, learned, even holy, people with no resolution in sight.
At some point I have to ask myself, “Did Christ come to Earth to write a book or start centuries of research, or to establish a community of believers (a church) in faith of His salvation?”
Click to expand...
Artie: You have replied to the second question, thanks. I will ponder it. My real question, however, was the first one, “At what point…” The second question, which you replied to, was more of a rhetorical remark that I ask myself. Sorry for the confusion.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top