Proof that Peter was Pope?

[arcturus]

For those who have been quoting J.N.D. Kelly, Protestant historian, just for the record:

In the late 2nd or 3rd century the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development. Once the monarchial episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent. (The Concise Dictionary of Christianity [Liturgical Press, 1992], p.6)

Hence, Kelly is in agreement that there was no single ruling bishop in Rome in the 1st century.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

arcturus:

For those who have been quoting J.N.D. Kelly, Protestant historian, just for the record:Hence, Kelly is in agreement that there was no single ruling bishop in Rome in the 1st century.

Thanks, but not good enough. He traces the papacy to St. Peter. He stated in his book, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, “The Papacy is the oldest of all Western institutions with an unbroken existence of almost 2000 years.” Perhaps he merely contradicted himself.

 

[vern_humphrey]

arcturus:

For those who have been quoting J.N.D. Kelly, Protestant historian, just for the record:Hence, Kelly is in agreement that there was no single ruling bishop in Rome in the 1st century.

But so what?

The Papacy derives not from Rome, but from Peter, and the commission and powers granted him by Jesus.

Very clearly, in the early organizational states of the Church, there were experimental approaches, some of which were not successful. But what emerged was a low, three-tiered hierarchy where the successor of Peter is the overall head of the Church.

Clement clearly exercised authority extending beyond his see, and was recognized as having the power to do it. And the Bishops to this day recognize that the Bishop of Rome is their head.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From the Protestant New Bible Commentary:

"In 5:13 the writer sends greetings from ‘she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you’. This seems like a reference to the local church in Babylon, but it is unlikely that Peter would have gone to the former capital of Nebuchadnezzar’s empire.

“By Peter’s time it was a sparsely inhabited ruin (fulfilling Isaiah 14:23). In Rev 16:19 and 17:5 ‘Babylon’ is used as a cryptic name for Rome, and Col 4:10 and Phm 24 (most likely written in Rome) show that Mark was there with Paul. In 2 Tim 4:11 Mark is in Asia Minor, and Paul sends for him to come, most probably to Rome.” …

“The fact that neither Peter nor Paul mentions the other in the list of those sending greetings from Rome merely suggests that they were not together at the time of writing their letters. All this points to the theory that Peter was writing from Rome, which is supported by the evidence of Tertullian (praescrip haeret, 36) and Eusebius (Eccl History, 2.25.8; 2.15.2 and 3.1.2-3).”[NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY (Intervarsity Press, 1994), p. 1370 edited by Donald Guthrie with D.A. Carson, R.T. France, J.A. Motyer, and G.J. Wenham]

 

[arcturus]

Dave wrote:

Thanks, but not good enough. He traces the papacy to St. Peter. He stated in his book, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, “The Papacy is the oldest of all Western institutions with an unbroken existence of almost 2000 years.” Perhaps he merely contradicted himself.

You’re welcome, but I doubt it. Note the line does not say anything at all like: the Papacy is the oldest of all Western Institutions with an unbroken existence tracing back to Peter, the first bishop of Rome.” Objective historians agree there is no proof of a single ruling bishop in Rome until the mid 2nd century, as JND Kelly clearly stated in the quote I posted above. The phrase “almost 2000 years” does not equate to the RC claim, and is just an expedient way of rounding off 1850 years or so for a blurb on the dust jacket. Now, if JND Kelly contradicts himself, why quote him as a reliable source? The quote again:

In the late 2nd or 3rd century the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development. Once the monarchial episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent. (The Concise Dictionary of Christianity [Liturgical Press, 1992], p.6)

Please note the following:

1. JND Kelly describes Peter being identified as bishop of Rome is a development and a tradition.
2. A single monarchial episcopate, the church of Rome being ruled by a single bishop, occurs in the mid 2nd century. Therefore, Peter could not have been a single ruling bishop of Rome in the 1st century, according to Kelly.
   The statement seems pretty unequivocal to me.

 

[vern_humphrey]

1) JND Kelly describes Peter being identified as bishop of Rome is a development and a tradition.
2) A single monarchial episcopate, the church of Rome being ruled by a single bishop, occurs in the mid 2nd century. Therefore, Peter could not have been a single ruling bishop of Rome in the 1st century, according to Kelly.
The statement seems pretty unequivocal to me.

You miss the point. Peter was Peter. His role was defined by Christ, not by being a bishop of a specific city. In Acts, we see him exerting his leadership again and again.

Now as for his successors, we see one of the First Century Bishops of Rome (Clement) exerting his authority outside his see – and being acknowledged – at a time when at least one Apostle was still living.

And we see acceptance of the authority of the Bishop of Rome by the very people who you would expect to oppose him – his fellow bishops – very early.

Finally, the people who unequivocally hold the Magesterium, the power to define and teach Church doctrine – the bishops – teach that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter and holds his keys.

 

[mercygate]

arcturus:

Objective historians agree there is no proof of a single ruling bishop in Rome until the mid 2nd century, as JND Kelly clearly stated in the quote I posted above.
. . .

1. JND Kelly describes Peter being identified as bishop of Rome is a development and a tradition.

Mid second century? Perhaps 100 years or fewer after Peter’s death? You make that sound like a long time.

I remember my great grandmother very well. She was born in 1858 and died in 1954 when I was 9 years old. She told of being taken by her parents to see the train carrying Abraham Lincoln’s coffin as it made its way through Illinois. It is now 2005, 140 years after Lincoln’s death. Yet I have sat on the lap of someone who was an eye witness to that train journey. I have no reason to doubt this family “tradition” because I learned it from her and also heard it from her long-lived younger brother. I have passed that story on to my daughter, who will probably live to repeat it until at least 2060.

Since the Peter-as-Bishop-of-Rome tradition is a lot more important than my great grandmother’s viewing of Lincoln’s train, I would think it to be at least as reliable.

Peter is said to have gone to Rome in A.D. 42. Ignatius (ca. 107) speaks of his presence there. Thus, this second century tradition is closer in time to Peter than I am to my great grandmother’s story about Lincoln.

The fact that the concept of Petrine primacy as an operative principle evolved over a couple of hundred years should not translate into a denial that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, especially since the “tradition” is so near in time and is corroborated by early texts cited by others.

I don’t have my references here but if memory serves, the first Pope specifically to claim the power of the keys was Cornelius in A.D. 251 – but that in no way unseats the widely held belief that Peter was the Bishop of Rome.

 

[arcturus]

Sorry Jim, for the confusion and answering the wrong question. Your question again was:

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.

My sense is that there will be no resolution among religious groups until the Lord returns and His truth will not be a matter of what men think is the truth. Until then, the arguments and debates will continue as long as the issue, at least between the two sides represented here, is ultimately based upon the question “by whose authority?”

As we all know, Catholics teach that the final authority resides in the church. Non-Catholic Christians generally teach God’s Word revealed in scripture is the final authority. The debate rages on. How do you know what God’s Word is without the Church? How do you know what the Church is without God’s Word? Etc.

The two groups appear irreconcilable.

And so it all comes down to the individual to look at the evidence, historical and biblical, consider the arguments and make an informed individual decision. Which is what Greg00 started this thread on and I think is commendable. Too many folks, Catholic and Protestants, just believe things without asking why.

When is it enough? My view is it is enough when the individual has looked at the evidence on both sides and says, “Okay, I have seen/read/heard enough. Given the record of scripture and history, I am certain this is where the truth lies.”

This is probably not a very satisfying answer but that is how I see it.

 

[arcturus]

mercygate wrote:

Mid second century? Perhaps 100 years or fewer after Peter’s death? You make that sound like a long time

I think you misunderstood. Historians like JND Kelly aren’t saying that they simply can’t find any evidence of what kind of episcopate the church in Rome had in the 1st century and that the evidence only emerged in the mid 2nd. They are definitively saying all the evidence points to “a group of presbyter-bishops” or plurality of elders leading the church of Rome in the 1st century and that Rome finally developed a church government of a single ruling bishop in the mid second century.

In that sense, a hundred years (or more) is indeed a long time for Rome to be without a single ruling bishop when the RCC claims the papacy has always existed since the beginning of the Christian church.

Also, any evidence of Peter being IN Rome does not necessarily equate to Peter being the bishop OF Rome.

It is revealing as well that Ignatius, in his letters, never addresses a bishop of Rome while adressing letters to bishops of other churches.

I believe the first usage of Matthew 16 as a means to claim authority for the bishop of Rome was by Stephen around 260-something. Now we are talking over two hundred years later. That is a long time to develop something new and get off track. Look at the following the Mormons have, as well as Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have been around for only about 150 and 100 years respectively.

One also still has to deal with, and I would hope to Greg00’s satisfaction, the absence of any mention of Peter as pope or bishop of Rome (or anywhere else) in the New Testament epistles, by Paul or anyone else. That his authority is recognized as supreme by the apostles. Does it not seem reasonable to expect in the descriptions of church hierarchy in the NT some mention of the papacy, given the critical importance it has in the Catholic belief system?

Vern: the argument can easily be made that once Paul arrived on the scene, he exhibited more leadership than Peter. After the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts, where James has the last word, Acts records very little about Peter, and Paul emerges as the prominent apostle.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

arcturus:

… Objective historians agree there is no proof of a single ruling bishop in Rome until the mid 2nd century

“Objective historians” must mean those that agree with you, hmmm?

How about these non-Catholic Orthodox scholars, are they not “objective” in your view?

“Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of ‘church-with-priority’ at the end of the first century.” (THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church edited by John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992, page 124)

… the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority…Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument." (ibid, page 125-126)

Speaking of the Church of Rome, Ignatius [AD 110] uses the phrase ‘which presides’ in two passages. … The term ‘which presides’ [Greek given] needs no discussion; used in the masculine it means the bishop*, for he, as head of the local church, sits in the ‘first place’ at the eucharistic assembly, that is, in the central seat.* He is truly the president of his church…[Ignatius] pictured the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the ‘first place.’ So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord…In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome." (page 126-127)

"…Irenaeus [AD 189] insists that anyone looking for the truth can find it in the Tradition of the Apostles, which every local church has preserved. So we must suppose he thought that the Apostolic Tradition and the Faith proclaimed to mankind were preserved in the Roman Church more fully than in others, or, at least, in a more manifest way. "

“…according to [Cyprian’s] doctrine there should have really been one single bishop at the head of the Universal Church…According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter’s throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter’s throne -par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian’s insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church [Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem]. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian’s passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est- [the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise].” (ibid, page 98-99)

to be continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Well before the novel theories that Peter was not the first pope, which seem invented by the “objective historians” of recent times, the following was the judgement of the Universal Catholic Church at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon:

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." (Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3)

The Pope had the power to excommunicate the Bishop of Alexandria.

The Bishops of Chalcedon state EXPLICITLY that the Pope’s authority was given to him by the Savior.

Read how they describe the authority given to Pope Leo…

You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith. … (Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98)

Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness. … (ibid)

Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. (ibid)

The Bishops of the Eastern (and Western) Churches in the 5th century clearly understood Pope Leo’s authority to have come directly from the Savior by virtue of holding the office of the See of Peter, the Chair of Peter.

Notice too that the Bishops insist the Pope Leo is the HEAD and they are like CHILDREN, whereas, Pope Leo is the PARENT of the UNIVERSAL Church represented at Chalcedon by bishops from the EAST and West.

The Bishops sent the canons THEY OVERWHELMING DECIDED UPON to Pope Leo for his ratification. What if Pope Leo rejected a canon they overwhelmingly decided upon? Well, that’s what happened… (to be continued)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Council of Chalcedon attempted to elevate Constantinople in Canon 28. This was rejected by Pope Leo. The Bishop of Constantinople wrote to Pope Leo AFTER Leo rejected canon 28, and apologetically stated,

As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. (Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132, on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon)

Ask yourself this question: Did Bishop Anatolius, the Patricarch of Constantinople believe Pope Leo had merely a “primacy of honor,” or did he clearly asser that he had a primacy of jurisdiction? It seems to me the latter is certain, as the canons of Chalcedon had no authority unless the Pope ratified them.

 

[LtTony]

LtTony: "Regarding your sincere comment regarding objective research into faith and scripture… At what point does the endeavour reach its objective; when is enough enough?"

**arcturus: "My sense is that there will be no resolution among religious groups until the Lord returns…**Catholic and Protestants, just believe things without asking why."

arcturus:
Thanks for the replies. I think we generally agree, although I’d like to now refine my view a bit, generally speaking.
To the consternation of some Cath and Prot alike, it seems to me there are logical arguments on both sides. Again, Godly, scholarly and sincere people have argued the issues for centuries. They are/were experts in ancient history or languages, for example, yet reach different conclusions. I pray the expectation is for each of us to make an honest effort to discerne the truth, not to become as fluent in a discipline of study as the experts. To me, the academic issues are in dispute, which implies the truth may never be defined to us in an earthly sort of way.
The debates often seem to be not about Christ but about the participants themselves. They seek to rationalize and validate their pre-held beliefs. They want to be right. It’s natural, I suppose.
So rather than a never-ending pouring over ancient documents, it becomes more of a matter of the heart, love of God. (At least that’s one thing I bring from Scripture.)
So, it aint that difficult. I hope it is the heart, 'cause me not that smart.
Generally speaking, anyway.

Jim

 

[Ignatius]

Phil H:

However, essentially there is no proof. The Roman Catholic Church was formed by the Roman emperor Constantine in the third century AD.

Sorry Phil, In Ignatius said where Jesus Christ is there is the CATHOLIC Church 107 AD, hundreds of years before constantine.

May God bless you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Phil H:

However, essentially there is no proof. The Roman Catholic Church was formed by the Roman emperor Constantine in the third century AD…

Ignatius:

Sorry Phil, In Ignatius said where Jesus Christ is there is the CATHOLIC Church 107 AD, hundreds of years before constantine.

May God bless you.

Sorry again, Phil – Constantine didn’t become Emperor until the second decade of the FOURTH Century AD.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Ignatius]

arcturus:

I feel it is important for people of faith to have an objective basis for their beliefs, and this is an apologetics forum, so it is only appropriate to discuss these things here.
In the same manner, I would urge Catholics to explore various sources for the factual bases and origens of their doctrines/teaching. .

If the last sentence is true, I would then urge you to recheck your facts. Your timeline is incorrect if you believe that Babylon was a thriving community in the late 1st century. Babylon was in fact in ruins at the time Peter was in Rome. Many sources, including the Encyclopedia Britannica and Colliers will verify this.

May the peace of Christ be with you.

 

[Erich]

arcturus:

After the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts, where James has the last word, Acts records very little about Peter, and Paul emerges as the prominent apostle.

Two things:

1. If this meeting is the same as the one related in Gal.2:1-10, then the Council of Jerusalem imposed nothing upon Gentile Christians in respect to Mosaic law (cf. Gal 2:6); whereas James’ decree in Acts (after “the whole assembly fell silent” in Acts 15:12, i.e. after Peter – not James – had the last word) instructs Gentile Christians of mixed communities to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage (cf. Lev. 18), the meat of strangled animals, and blood (all of which 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 mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (see Acts 21:25 where Paul seems to be learning of the decree for the first time).

Origen in the beginning of the 3rd century placed the latter council in Antioch: “Wherefore, as there is some obscurity about this matter [food], without some explanation is given, it seemed good to the apostles of Jesus and the elders assembled together at Antioch, and also, as they themselves say, to the Holy Spirit, to write a letter to the Gentile believers, forbidding them to partake of those things from which alone they say it is necessary to abstain, namely, “things offered to idols, things strangled, and blood.”” [Contra Celsus 8.29]

1. Paul emerges as the prominent apostle in Acts because Luke followed Paul and not Peter (Mark is the one who followed Peter to Rome).

 

[Vitae]

A most helpful resource for all of you would likely be:

Documents Illustrating Papal Authority: A.D. 96 - 454 by: E. Giles. Avaliable online here: questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=11128554
and in book form at Amazon.com here: amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0883556960/qid=1131040635/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9599832-5018365?v=glance&s=books

This resource was the main resource that helped convert now Catholic Apologist Gerry Matatics.

Take care.