Was peter a pope

[Bill_Pick]

Here are 7 bible verse that they say proves Peter was not a pope,The verse are from a non-cathloic and I,m Cathloic looking for help.

              What eight Scriptures show that there is no foundation in the Scriptures for the Papacy?

Scripture one: Christ taught that all the apostles were equal. Matthew 23:10: ‘Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ; and ye are all brethren.’ Matthew 23:11: ‘But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.’ In Mark 10:42, when the disciples strove among each other for supremacy, Jesus said: ‘Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them.’ Mark 10:43: ‘But so shall it not be among you; but whosoever will be great among you shall be your minister.’ Mark 10:44: ‘And whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be servant of all.’ Mark 10:45: ‘For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.’ From these passages it is evident that Christ conferred no superiority upon Peter, for if He had the strife could not have arisen, and Christ would have referred to His grant of supremacy to Peter.
Scripture two: Peter himself nowhere alludes to such supremacy. He says rather: ‘The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ.’ (I Peter 5:1) He here calls himself an elder and witness, but nowhere the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.
Scripture three: Peter was sent by the other apostles to Samaria: ‘Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.’ (Acts 8:14) Just think of ‘His Holiness’ the Pope being sent by the Cardinals to preach the Gospel! It is well known that for many years Popes have not preached at all.
Scripture four: A council of the apostles and brethren was held at Jerusalem, Peter was present, and yet the sentence of James was followed (Acts 15:6-29).
Scripture five: The apostle Paul declares in 2 Corinthians 11:5 that he was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles, which is inconsistent with the notion of Peter’s supremacy.
Scripture six: Peter, James and John are called pillars. ‘James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars.’ (Galatians 2:9)Because Peter was a pillar he was not the foundation.
Scripture seven: ‘Paul withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed.’ (Galatians 2:11) It is hardly the attitude to an ‘Infallible Pope.’
Scripture eight: When Paul enumerates the various officers of the church he does not say: ‘First the chief apostle’ or ‘the vicar of Christ, Jesus Christ upon earth’ or ‘the father of kings and princes,’ but ‘apostles’ (Ephesians 4:11).
Thanks to all who answer

 

[greggy53]

Here are 7 bible verse that they say proves Peter was not a pope,The verse are from a non-cathloic and I,m Cathloic looking for help.

              What eight Scriptures show that there is no foundation in the Scriptures for the Papacy?

Scripture one: Christ taught that all the apostles were equal. Matthew 23:10: ‘Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ; and ye are all brethren.’ Matthew 23:11: ‘But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.’ In Mark 10:42, when the disciples strove among each other for supremacy, Jesus said: ‘Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them.’ Mark 10:43: ‘But so shall it not be among you; but whosoever will be great among you shall be your minister.’ Mark 10:44: ‘And whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be servant of all.’ Mark 10:45: ‘For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.’ From these passages it is evident that Christ conferred no superiority upon Peter, for if He had the strife could not have arisen, and Christ would have referred to His grant of supremacy to Peter.
Scripture two: Peter himself nowhere alludes to such supremacy. He says rather: ‘The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ.’ (I Peter 5:1) He here calls himself an elder and witness, but nowhere the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.
Scripture three: Peter was sent by the other apostles to Samaria: ‘Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.’ (Acts 8:14) Just think of ‘His Holiness’ the Pope being sent by the Cardinals to preach the Gospel! It is well known that for many years Popes have not preached at all.
Scripture four: A council of the apostles and brethren was held at Jerusalem, Peter was present, and yet the sentence of James was followed (Acts 15:6-29).
Scripture five: The apostle Paul declares in 2 Corinthians 11:5 that he was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles, which is inconsistent with the notion of Peter’s supremacy.
Scripture six: Peter, James and John are called pillars. ‘James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars.’ (Galatians 2:9)Because Peter was a pillar he was not the foundation.
Scripture seven: ‘Paul withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed.’ (Galatians 2:11) It is hardly the attitude to an ‘Infallible Pope.’
Scripture eight: When Paul enumerates the various officers of the church he does not say: ‘First the chief apostle’ or ‘the vicar of Christ, Jesus Christ upon earth’ or ‘the father of kings and princes,’ but ‘apostles’ (Ephesians 4:11).
Thanks to all who answer

I usually don’y pay much attention to the “little Rock”, “big Rock” nonsense that protetants throw around. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, he told him that whatsover he bound on earth would be bound in heaven. You either take Jesus at his word or you don’t. Most protestants have a few scriptures memorized that back their postions. Iv’e had protestants look at me with dibelief when I recall to them scriptures which don’t back what they believe. Most of them accept what scripture they want to and disregard anything else. Even it it is obvious like Jesus putting Peter in charge of his church.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I usually don’y pay much attention to the “little Rock”, “big Rock” nonsense that protetants throw around. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, he told him that whatsover he bound on earth would be bound in heaven. You either take Jesus at his word or you don’t. Most protestants have a few scriptures memorized that back their postions. Iv’e had protestants look at me with dibelief when I recall to them scriptures which don’t back what they believe. Most of them accept what scripture they want to and disregard anything else. Even it it is obvious like Jesus putting Peter in charge of his church.

Thank You

 

[Prof_K]

The best set of arguments for the scriptual basis of the papacy that I have heard can be found in Scott Hahn’s (a former prostestant minister) talk on the papacy. If you have a little time, the entire talk is on You tube.
LINK
This will arm you well for any further debates.
God Bless
Prof. K

 

[YADA]

Here are 7 bible verse that they say proves Peter was not a pope,The verse are from a non-cathloic and I,m Cathloic looking for help.

What eight Scriptures show that there is no foundation in the Scriptures for the Papacy?
Scripture one: Christ taught that all the apostles were equal. Matthew 23:10: ‘Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ; and ye are all brethren.’

The Office that the Pope holds is not one of being a “master” … the Pope is the servant of the Servants of God :yup:… he serves the other Bishops and the faithful as a leader … Jesus prays especially for Peter [because Satan will target him - as the leader of the rest], Jesus specifically tells Peter to strenghten his brethren … Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep and lambs … Peter [and Peter apart from the other Apostles] is given the “Keys” read Isaiah … as the Prime Minister he holds an office and the office is filled upon vacancy - Christianity is an ‘apostolic’ faith … Jesus is the fullfillment of the Davidic Kingdom … even Judas held an office which was filled … etc

Matthew 23:11: ‘But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.’ In Mark 10:42, when the disciples strove among each other for supremacy, Jesus said: ‘Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them.’ Mark 10:43: ‘But so shall it not be among you; but whosoever will be great among you shall be your minister.’ Mark 10:44: ‘And whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be servant of all.’ Mark 10:45: ‘For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.’ From these passages it is evident that Christ conferred no superiority upon Peter, for if He had the strife could not have arisen, and Christ would have referred to His grant of supremacy to Peter.

As noted above, Peter is given the Keys … all the Apostles were given the authority to bind and loose … Peter [and his succcessors] serve the Church … they do - in fact - exercise leadership [and service] not lordship …

Scripture two: Peter himself nowhere alludes to such supremacy. He says rather: ‘The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ.’ (I Peter 5:1) He here calls himself an elder and witness, but nowhere the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.
Scripture three: Peter was sent by the other apostles to Samaria: ‘Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.’ (Acts 8:14) Just think of ‘His Holiness’ the Pope being sent by the Cardinals to preach the Gospel! It is well known that for many years Popes have not preached at all.
Scripture four: A council of the apostles and brethren was held at Jerusalem, Peter was present, and yet the sentence of James was followed (Acts 15:6-29).
Scripture five: The apostle Paul declares in 2 Corinthians 11:5 that he was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles, which is inconsistent with the notion of Peter’s supremacy.
Scripture six: Peter, James and John are called pillars. ‘James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars.’ (Galatians 2:9)Because Peter was a pillar he was not the foundation.

It was Peter that pronounced the need to fill Judas’ office. Peter gave the testimony of God’s revelation regarding dietary laws … Peter was destined to lead the entire Church - Jerusalem was headed by James - it did not represent the whole of the church … The Pope works in union with the Bishops [successor to the Apostles] … the Pope is not a dictator - so reducing and filtering each verse in scripture through the “Pope is Dictator” lens [POV] is a false beginning :tsktsk:…

Scripture seven: ‘Paul withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed.’ (Galatians 2:11) It is hardly the attitude to an ‘Infallible Pope.’
Scripture eight: When Paul enumerates the various officers of the church he does not say: ‘First the chief apostle’ or ‘the vicar of Christ, Jesus Christ upon earth’ or ‘the father of kings and princes,’ but ‘apostles’ (Ephesians 4:11).
Thanks to all who answer

Yes, Paul addressed Peter’s hypocracy in not eating with gentiles when judaizers came to town … But let you think Paul never guilty of hypocracy … he had Timothy circumcized [unnecessarily] just to appease the judaizers … a far more egregious act then Peter just not eating with gentiles for a time … Peter was not forcing the gentiles to conform to jewish dietary laws …

Paul had a chip on his shoulder … he was accused of theft, of not being a ‘real’ apostle [having never walked with the ma - Jesus, and having been a persecuter of the Church … the hype over “confronting even Peter to his face” … gives testomony to the leadership of Peter … Paul uses this incident of hypocracy to beef up his “bona fides” … In many ways Paul is like Peter - impetuous … you have to love the men God gave the Church - otherwise we might think there was no hope for us

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome … in addition he occupies the “Chair of Peter”

Peter’s office [as the head of the Church] was not filled until after Peter was martyred. The last physical location of Peter was Rome. The Church has maintained from Peter’s occupation of the See of Rome to the present that the Bishop of Rome would also occupy the Chair of Peter … this is found in the writings of the early Church Fathers … But in one sense the Bishop of Rome is like any other Bishop …

Oh yes … and Pope … it is just a rendition of Father … you know Abba, Father, Daddy, Dad, Papa, Pope … we use that specific rendition for the Head of the Church today … but even Paul referred to himself as a “Father” … and in Isaiah, we are told that the Prime Minister is known to the people as and called “Abba” … Father … hence Pope …

 

[Hesychios]

I usually don’y pay much attention to the “little Rock”, “big Rock” nonsense …

I don’t either. It’s a weak argument.

Nevertheless, one has to define “Pope” before the original post can be answered.

I am of the opinion that there is too much of telescoping church history on this subject on the part of many Roman Catholics. A Pope (in the modern sense) is assumed in Saint Peter by many where there is none to be seen! This lends credence to the Protestant arguments as listed (except for that ‘little rock’ thing), and they need to be seriously confronted.

So my point once again is this: you have to define ‘Pope’ before the question can be answered…then you look for that in the early church.

It just so happens the Roman Catholic church at Vatican Council 1870 defines the Papacy for us in terms of Universal Jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. The text is readily available to everyone through Google and @ Sancte Sede website.

We do not find Saint Peter through scripture, nor any bishop of Rome in the First Millennium, exercising universal jurisdiction as defined in 1870AD.

Some Catholic theologians have stated that the Papacy as we know it today is an accident of history. I think one such notable was Cardinal Avery Dulles.

His Holiness Pope John Paul II (of blessed memory) had suggested to Orthodox to help him redefine the Papacy, and several noted Orthodox scholars have responded. It makes interesting reading.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

 

[Mark77]

Come on BILL!

This is too easy!! ( Only 7 verses?? JESUS SAYS, “and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” Lk 17:4)

First lets define the term “Pope.”.

Even the most vile, secular media recognize the Pope is a mere man, a leader appointed by Jesus to guide His Church here on earth; "The Pope (from Latin: “papa” or “father” from Greek πάπας, pápas, “papa”, Papa in Italian) is the Bishop of Rome, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church (Wikipedia)

Out of Context verses 1&2; Matthew 23:10: ‘Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ; and ye are all brethren.’ Matthew 23:11: ‘But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.’

Jesus is our only Lord and Master, Peter and his successors are our servants. Because Jesus clearly chose Peter to be Primary among men, he is not our Master, he is merely a man, like the Bishops and Priests that Jesus uses to reveal His Truth “In Persona Christi” in the person of, or representing Christ!

Out of Context verses 3-6; In Mark 10:42, when the disciples strove among each other for supremacy, Jesus said: ‘Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them.’ Mark 10:43: 'But so shall it not be among you; but whosoever will be great among you shall be your minister.’ Mark 10:44: ‘And whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be servant of all.’ Mark 10:45: ‘For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.’

Again, you have fallen for the lie that being chosen as the "Papa, or Father or dad equals superiority! You have obviously never been a DAD. You are in no way superior to your children, as a matter of fact you are subordinate to them as a loving servant. You would gladly die for them because you love them so much. You are responsible for their welfare like the good Sheppard, but you are not superior.

In Acts, Peter speaks first at the Council of Jerusalem, James is the Bishop there so he speaks as well.

No Pope is infallible, the Church has never taught that. Only the teachings of Jesus on Faith and Morals as revealed by the Holy Spirit through the office of the Pope are infallible.

The Devil will always sew seeds of doubt! His motto is divide and conquer!!

Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church, not the Pope. The Pope was chosen by Jesus to lead His Church on earth, the Body of Christ, until he returns!

Always read the Sacred Scriptures in context and in their entirety!

St. Peter is chosen by Jesus to be the Rock, he is given the Keys and Peter is always primary among the Apostles. Yes Peter is fallible, he denies Jesus but repents of his sin! He is wrong about Gentile circumcision (not a matter of Faith or Morals, just a discipline or rule of the Church) as rebuked by Paul.

Peter is always in the position of Primacy, the Pope, the final arbiter of Faith and Morals for the Church as Jesus wanted it to be.

Without a “PAPA” or Pope, we end up with 20, 000+ Protestant denominations,each claiming, without proper authority, to be in charge. We end up with 20, 000 different (often wrong!!!) answers and no final authority, no clear answers to the difficult and unpopular questions of Truth, like abortion, embryonic stem cell research, birth control, etc…

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei. Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark

 

[promethius]

Oh yes … and Pope … it is just a rendition of Father … you know Abba, Father, Daddy, Dad, Papa, Pope … we use that specific rendition for the Head of the Church today … but even Paul referred to himself as a “Father” … and in Isaiah, we are told that the Prime Minister is known to the people as and called “Abba” … Father … hence Pope …

Correction: the use of the greek word for father is actually “ab” or “abbi”. Abba is a greek aramaic hybrid which ONLY applies to God. In effect, the -a honorific ending from Aramaic turns the greek ab from a general term into a proper name: Father (aka, God). The actual word “Abba” only appears twice in scripture, both times in reference to God. Ab or Abbi is the application used for parents, preists, public ministers, and the pope.

 

[WesleyF]

Patrick Madrid has done an excellent job explaining how Peter was the first pope.

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=6148&T1=pope+fiction

Take a look! The very first fiction that he deals with is the fiction that Peter was not the first pope!

 

[rinnie]

Also remember what Jesus said in John 3 times yet. Feed my sheep, The leader leads the flock. What does he feed them knowledge, where did he get knowledge Jesus gave him the key’s to the kingdom. If you go to the O.T. keys means knowledge.

 

[rinnie]

Also Abraham in hebrew means exhaulted Father, Jesus changed Abram to Abraham which means rock. Jesus changed SImon to Peter that means rock. In Isaiah 51:1-2 you see rock. Rock means Father, Father in greek means Papa. . In Latin Papa means Pope. That;s how Peter translated into Pope. That’s why they called him the first Pope!

I love that Story!

 

[WarriorAngel]

What does Pope mean?
It means Papa.

What is the role of the Pope? To be the servant of the Church and instruct the ordained as well as the laity in matters of morality and doctrine.

Does this mean he is powerful?
No.

It means that any man in that position will be judged the hardest for being given the most. [via gifts of the Holy Spirit - they cannot claim ignorance]
IS it an enviable position?
No.

In fact in the early Church one Pope [and i think even before or near the time around Clement l - was given the position] actually ran and hid from the responsibility.
But he was found and forced to take it.

Popes dont campaign for the job. Most humble of them actually wished it didnt fall on them.

So the verses you used dont show anything about the Pope.

But remember - Jesus placed Peter as shepherd on earth - and as would be his successors. Christ giving the ministry and keys [which are there to open and shut what is on earth and Heaven] to Peter proove that Christ wanted His Church to have an authority and one in His Absense. Not just at that time, but for always.

A shepherd must take a stick to keep the sheep in line to protect them. And keeps an eye on them ensuring they dont disperse or that wolves do not come in and snatch them.

The Pope must keep watch and instruct us and the gates of hell shall not prevail…as Jesus said it would not. He was given much duty in the way of maintaining the Church.
The Pope must be ever vigilant.

Hebrews tells us that we must obey the Prelates [the Bishops - which the Pope is the highest Bishop] because of the account they are responsible for our souls.

ALL the other ‘verses’ you quoted are deemed in a matter of opinion on what outsiders think the role of the Pope is… but they truly are **only **speculating and their errors in understanding - often disregard all the verses of the scriptures where Peter was given a lot of responsibility.
Even to confirm the faith of the other Apostles.

IE - teach them too.

The interesting thing about sciptures is - it can be read many ways if one seeks to use it to which contradicts Tradition.

BTW - read St Chrysostom and other early Church fathers for the role of Peter and the Pope.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Also Abraham in hebrew means exhaulted Father, Jesus changed Abram to Abraham which means rock. Jesus changed SImon to Peter that means rock. In Isaiah 51:1-2 you see rock. Rock means Father, Father in greek means Papa. . In Latin Papa means Pope. That;s how Peter translated into Pope. That’s why they called him the first Pope!

I love that Story!

I didnt see this. Thanks for the info.

 

[rinnie]

I didnt see this. Thanks for the info.

Thanks for letting me share it. I LOVE THE POPE. And I love telling the story. We are so Blessed to have him. I used to Love John Paul ll the best, but Benedict is growing on me quite fast. Thank God for both of them!

 

[Prof_K]

Patrick Madrid has done an excellent job explaining how Peter was the first pope.

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=6148&T1=pope+fiction

Take a look! The very first fiction that he deals with is the fiction that Peter was not the first pope!

Wesley F…Thanks for the link…Now I am addicted. At least it’s a healthy addiction.
God Bless
Prof. K

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Here are 7 bible verse that they say proves Peter was not a pope,The verse are from a non-cathloic and I,m Cathloic looking for help.

What eight Scriptures show that there is no foundation in the Scriptures for the Papacy?
Scripture one: Christ taught that all the apostles were equal. Matthew 23:10: ‘Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ; and ye are all brethren.’ Matthew 23:11: ‘But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.’ In Mark 10:42, when the disciples strove among each other for supremacy, Jesus said: ‘Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them.’ Mark 10:43: ‘But so shall it not be among you; but whosoever will be great among you shall be your minister.’ Mark 10:44: ‘And whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be servant of all.’ Mark 10:45: ‘For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.’ From these passages it is evident that Christ conferred no superiority upon Peter, for if He had the strife could not have arisen, and Christ would have referred to His grant of supremacy to Peter.
Scripture two: Peter himself nowhere alludes to such supremacy. He says rather: ‘The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ.’ (I Peter 5:1) He here calls himself an elder and witness, but nowhere the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.
Scripture three: Peter was sent by the other apostles to Samaria: ‘Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.’ (Acts 8:14) Just think of ‘His Holiness’ the Pope being sent by the Cardinals to preach the Gospel! It is well known that for many years Popes have not preached at all.
Scripture four: A council of the apostles and brethren was held at Jerusalem, Peter was present, and yet the sentence of James was followed (Acts 15:6-29).
Scripture five: The apostle Paul declares in 2 Corinthians 11:5 that he was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles, which is inconsistent with the notion of Peter’s supremacy.
Scripture six: Peter, James and John are called pillars. ‘James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars.’ (Galatians 2:9)Because Peter was a pillar he was not the foundation.
Scripture seven: ‘Paul withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed.’ (Galatians 2:11) It is hardly the attitude to an ‘Infallible Pope.’
Scripture eight: When Paul enumerates the various officers of the church he does not say: ‘First the chief apostle’ or ‘the vicar of Christ, Jesus Christ upon earth’ or ‘the father of kings and princes,’ but ‘apostles’ (Ephesians 4:11).
Thanks to all who answer

The question is back to front ​

The Popes are the legitimate successors of Peter, but it does not follow, logically, or historically,or theologically,or doctrinally, that because they were Popes, Peter too must have been a Pope. He was something much more important - he was an Apostle.

So what they share with Peter is, not being Pope, but, something more fundamental: he has a certain function in the Church, that is a sharing in the authority of Christ, which is exercised by him but not by his fellow-Apostles: & this function is permanent in the Church. It is this Petrine function that makes the Popes Peter’s successors. They are not Apostles, because the Apostolate (in the strict sense - in the NT, it is applied in a looser as well as a stricter sense: Paul is called an Apostle, even though he never knew Jesus during His ministry) is peculiar to those who were members of the 12. As such, the 12 have no successors in their apostolate. That apart, the successors of the Apostles have the same mission as they, the same ministry, the same authority. This is the context within which the Petrine function operates.

The Papacy as such was not present in the Church from the beginning - it’s an historical development, contingent on the growth & needs of the Church; it did not exist for some centuries. The Petrine function in the Church OTOH has been part of the Church since the ministry of Christ: it is the root of what became the Papacy; which is a manifestation of the PF, and not necessarily the final one.

The only superiority worth anything, is “superiority” in love. Jesus is Lord because He was crucified. So the only means to become “superior”, is to become the servant of all. So quarrelling over precedence misses the point completely - faith in Christ is not founded on that sort of this-worldly value-system: it is radically different.

Hope that helps - the issues in your post are enough for a book; for many many books

 

[geometer]

Correction: the use of the greek word for father is actually “ab” or “abbi”. Abba is a greek aramaic hybrid which ONLY applies to God. In effect, the -a honorific ending from Aramaic turns the greek ab from a general term into a proper name: Father (aka, God). The actual word “Abba” only appears twice in scripture, both times in reference to God. Ab or Abbi is the application used for parents, preists, public ministers, and the pope.

I know jews who call their fathers Abba, it means Daddy…

 

[promethius]

I know jews who call their fathers Abba, it means Daddy…

Not correct. They may use it, but it is precisely because they 1) don’t agree with Christ that Abba applies only to the father and 2) don’t realize that Abba translates literally as The Father.

You can do a word history search on it if you like. Ab means father or Dad, Abbi means my father, or my dad, and is the actual derivative of the modern “daddy”, and Abba means The Father. It’s simple linguistics, the -a aramaic honorific changes it to a singular proper noun… in other words: a proper name. No amount of jews misusing a word is going to change the fact that the word Abba applies only to God.

Though I would like to correct one part of my original post, which i typed while entirely too tired. Abba is greek, but carries its roots in a hebrew/aramaic hybrid. I innacurately stated that it was a greek aramaic hybrid. Mea Culpa.

 

[promethius]

It is this Petrine function that makes the Popes Peter’s successors. They are not Apostles, because the Apostolate (in the strict sense - in the NT, it is applied in a looser as well as a stricter sense: Paul is called an Apostle, even though he never knew Jesus during His ministry) is peculiar to those who were members of the 12. As such, the 12 have no successors in their apostolate. That apart, the successors of the Apostles have the same mission as they, the same ministry, the same authority. This is the context within which the Petrine function operates.

Fancy presentation, but still patently untrue. We see in Acts that the apostles recognize the function of apostolic succession and elect a replacement for Judas. In fact, the entire basis of the church authority is built on apostolic succession. In other words, when you state “they are not apostles” RE: the popes of antiquity to present, you are VERY wrong.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Fancy presentation, but still patently untrue. We see in Acts that the apostles recognize the function of apostolic succession and elect a replacement for Judas. In fact, the entire basis of the church authority is built on apostolic succession. In other words, when you state “they are not apostles” RE: the popes of antiquity to present, you are VERY wrong.

Where I have denied apostolic succession ? Far from doing any such thing, I affirmed it. Are you sure it was my post you read ?​

FWIW - being a successor to the Apostles =//= being an Apostle. Short of SHOUTING :tsktsk: :tsktsk: I could hardly have said that more clearly. ***If ***you have trouble understanding English, please accept my apologies This is basic ecclesiology, common to Catholics & many others. It’s no “fancy” idea of mine: anything but - thanks anyway