Was Peter a Pope

[Sirach14]

Questions and answers from Just For Catholics.

justforcatholics.org/a89.htm

 

[Salmon]

The article you referenced contains an error.

It says:

“It is evident that Christ gave authority to the apostle Peter. “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19). The issue is whether this authority was unique to Peter. Evidently not, for soon afterwards Jesus gives exactly the same authority to all the apostles, “Verily I say to you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18).”

The other apostles did NOT receive the Keys to the Kingdom.

Peace in Christ…Salmon

 

[Racer_X]

Rome would make Peter the chief shepherd, ‘the Church’s supreme pastor’ (Catechism, para 857). Peter himself would never accept this usurped title for it belongs to Another. Peter calls Jesus Christ ‘the Chief Shepherd’ (1 Peter 5:4).

Duh. Every pope would consider Jesus to be the Chief Shepherd. It’s a stupidly false dichotomy. The pope is the church’s supreme pastor–the lead member of the church. Christ is not a member of the church. He is the head, the king, the God, the object to which the church points.

 

[space_ghost]

for those that don’t believe, there is no explanation…

for those that DO believe, no explanation is necessary…

 

[JimG]

Well, if they won’t believe the Scriptural evidence, perhaps they should just look at the historical record, beginning with Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement, and right on down to John Paul II. The only way out is to say that the church got it wrong from day one.

JimG

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

“It is evident that Christ gave authority to the apostle Peter. “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19). The issue is whether this authority was unique to Peter. Evidently not, for soon afterwards Jesus gives exactly the same authority to all the apostles, “Verily I say to you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18).”

It is important to realize that Peter receives the Keys and the Power to bind and loose himself alone. (Matthew 16:19)

Then the other Apostles receive only the power to bind and loosen when assembled together and WITH Peter. (Matthew 18:18)

 

[rfk]

He is trying to imply the “binding and loosing” in Mt 16:19 as being equivalent to “binding and loosing” in Mt 18:18, but there is far more to the passage than that. Let’s dig into it.

Credit where it is due: I heard these points made in Steve Ray’s conversion tape last summer. Since that was some time ago, I may mis-remember some of his points, which is my fault, not Steve’s.

He points out there are two important things to remember when trying to understand the Gospels. First, you need to be able to think like a Jew from 2000 years ago. Second, there is nothing in the Gospels by accident. The author chooses each parable, incident, word, or phrase because it is meaningful to conveying his message in Christ.
From Mt 16:13:

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

When we understand the significance of Caesarea Philippi, then we realize that Jesus didn’t end up there “by accident”. Caesarea Philippi was a couple of days journey north of Galilee, where Jesus did not normally travel. In fact, traveling there meant that he and the disciples, being practicing Jews, would have become “ritually unclean” and had to stop for a time of purification before re-entering Judeah. So going there was a “big deal”, not a casual accident.

So what is in Caesarea Philippi? It is a huge rock a couple of hundred feet high and very long. It was also the major temple in the ancient Roman world to the god Pan. They had a temple where they sacrificed people by throwing them down this hole that was kind of like a bottomless pit. There is a spring that comes out of the base of the rock, and if the water turned bloody, then the sacrifice was pleasing. Their god was pleased by sacrificing people. This contrasts with Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice – our God sacrifices himself for all people. Oh, and by the way. What did they call that bottomless pit? “The Gates of Hell”. Take a look at Caesarea Philippi.

And what about the water that comes out of the base of the rock? It is one of the three major springs that start the Jordan River ultimately feeding into the Sea of Galilee. This water sustained life in ancient Israel, and is even used as the source of water for Jerusalem today. Baptism, with its water, is a source of life for us in that it brings us into covenant with Christ and His Church. I think the imagery is beautiful.

So the choice of Caesarea Philippi was quite meaningful for the passages to come. When you take into account the effort put into the journey, the symbolism of overtaking the false temple with the true Church, and the fact that this is the first time in Matthew’s gospel where Christ is revealed as the Messiah, there is pretty heavy symbolism underscoring Peter’s elevation to a new role. (next message)

 

[rfk]

Mt 16:14-17:

he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

This passage is meaningful because Jesus is pointing out that Peter was not coming up with the answer from his own human will. Instead, the gift of prophecy had been given to him, and blessed him with awareness of the truth. This is in contrast to the other disciples. We will return to this point after the “keys of the kingdom” part, because it is an integral part of understanding the Jewish context.
Mt 16:18:

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, …

The unfortunate part of this Bible verse is the translation to English. If you know French, for example, there is still consistency between the name and the noun: “You are “Pierre”, and upon this “Pierre” I will build my Church.” In Aramaic it was the word “Kepha” or “Kepa”, meaning “rock”. So it would have sounded like: “You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church.” Kepha was translated to Greek as Cephas or Kephas, which has become a Christian word you may have seen before.
Mt 16:18:

(cont) … and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it.

Remember where he was standing – in front of the rock at Caesarea Philippi, with “The Gates of Hell”! Here are some pictures of it:

[ur]http://www.catholic-convert.com/Por...ery/Biblical and Historical Sites/Banias1.jpg
catholic-convert.com/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282-c6475cdb7ee7/Gallery/Biblical%20and%20Historical%20Sites/IMG_0296.jpg
greatcommission.com/israel/CaesareaPhilippiPossiblyGatesOfHades.jpg
ntimages.com/Israel/Caesarea-Philippi/cliff-cave.jpg

I really love the imagery of Christ saying that to Peter at that place. Now, we’ll move on to the rest of the passage.

 

[rfk]

” I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

To really understand this passage, once needs to remember what the “keys to the kingdom” meant in the Old Testament. The king was the ruler, and always had a steward with the “keys of the kingdom”. The steward ruled the land in every respect –- judging people, taxing, making laws, administering the kingdom – except having the actual throne of the king. The kingship was a dynasty. The stewardship was also a dynasty, and a defined government office. Look at Isiah 22 for example. Or look what Pharoah says to Joseph:

“You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people shall dart at your command. Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you. Herewith," Pharaoh told Joseph, “I place you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.”

So when Jesus (our Lord and King) gave the keys of the kingdom to Kepha, Peter (our authoritative steward), everyone in the Jewish audience at that time immediately and intuitively understood all the implications of that delegation of authority. And the fact that the office was dynastic, meaning Peter had a successor, who had a successor, who had……
By the way, why did Pharoah make Joseph his steward? Because God gave Joseph the gift of prophecy, Joseph was able to interpret Pharoah’s dreams for him. What was Pharoah’s reaction?

So Pharaoh said to Joseph: "Since God has made all this known to you, no one can be as wise and discerning as you are.

Well, today we may not call it prophecy, but I really do believe that the Holy Spirit has a unique and special relationship with the Pope to help our steward be wise and discerning. Coming now to a close, what of the rest of the verse?

…Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

This passage also has “echoes” from the Old Testament. The whole “binding-loosing theme from many passages would have been understood by a 1st century Jew to include authoritative teaching and imposing or lifting banning or excommunication. For example, look at Isiah.
Is 22:22:

I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.

As a final note, take a moment to appreciate the significance of Jesus giving Simon a new name. God giving someone a new name was always momentous in the Bible. For example renaming Abram to Abraham or Jacob to Israel also meant a complete change in their relationship with God. It was a signal that God had elevated them to a new stature and role in salvation history.

 

[Serafin]

Hi There:

rfk:

So when Jesus (our Lord and King) gave the keys of the kingdom to Kepha, Peter (our authoritative steward), everyone in the Jewish audience at that time immediately and intuitively understood all the implications of that delegation of authority. And the fact that the office was dynastic, meaning Peter had a successor, who had a successor, who had……
By the way, why did Pharoah make Joseph his steward? Because God gave Joseph the gift of prophecy, Joseph was able to interpret Pharoah’s dreams for him. What was Pharoah’s reaction? This passage also has “echoes” from the Old Testament. The whole “binding-loosing theme from many passages would have been understood by a 1st century Jew to include authoritative teaching

You give a beautiful,well thought out and sensible explanation of your belief from Scripture. The problem I have always had with it is that Pope or not, Peter and the rest of the “crowd”, didn’t sem to act like they saw it quite this way at all. Yes Peter was very much the prominent one in speaking as in Pentecost. But none of what you say that “they understood and knew”, spared Peter from severe criticism from the strict Jewish converts to Christianity when he went to the house of Cornelius as recorded in the book of Acts. Didn’t they realize he had said authority?

The Council of Jerusalem is also very interesting, if what you say is as they understood…Peter’s behaviour and that of the rest of his peers is rather odd. There is a lot of discussion, Peter speaks, Paul and his companion follow with testimonies, and it is James who seems to have the final word! Then the apostles, the elders and all the Church decide what response to give to the crisis. What is wrong with that picture, do not they realize Peter is the steward with the authority and the keys and all?

As I read the accounts of Peter and the excersise of his ministry from Scripture , a picture emerges! Pardon me but it does not seem much like what you so eloquently describe. He may have been a Pope, but he sure did not act or speak with the forcefulness of many of his sucessors.

Don’t you think we may be reading more into it that he himself thought or Christ meant? Are we projecting the powers assumed by latter Roman bishops and exegeses of later periods in history onto Scripture rather than, letting the the history recorded there be our guide?

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Tyler_Smedley]

Serafin:

. He may have been a Pope, but he sure did not act or speak with the forcefulness of many of his sucessors.

What do you mean by this statement? Did not St. Peter settle the issue of Jewish converts at the first great councile of the Church? Was he not the one who spoke at Pentacost? Was he not marytered for his Faith crucified upside down in reverence for his savior? I fail to see how Peter wasn’t the first Pope…will you explain further for me?

 

[Calvin]

Tyler Smedley:

Did not St. Peter settle the issue of Jewish converts at the first great councile of the Church?

No he didn’t.

At best, St. Peter implicitly consented to St. James’ decision.

At worst, St. James made the decision on his own without St. Peter.

Acts 15 is very clear. Even in the Vulgate St. James says: “now therefore it is my decision…”

-C

 

[jimmy]

14 Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written:

How does James make the decision in Acts 15? He is agreeing with Peter.

“now therefore it is my decision…”

Where do you get this quote from? I don’t see it anywhere in Acts 15. I also did an internet search for it and nothing came up.

 

[agname]

That article is inaccurate.

First…let’s see the definition of, “Pope.”

Main Entry: pope
Pronunciation: 'pOp
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English pApa, from Late Latin papa, from Greek pappas, papas, title of bishops, literally, papa

1. a prelate who as bishop of Rome is the head of the Roman Catholic Church

Conclusion: Pope is used to describe the "Bishop of Rome."

Let’s break it down further…

The Catholic Church was founded by Christ…upon Peter (Matthew 16:18 ) – “Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church.” And, the keys were handed to him. Peter was our first Pope. Simon, whose name means “reed,” is having his name changed by Jesus from a reed that blows in the wind to a “rock” (In Aramaic it’s “kepha”) that stands firm. In John 21:15-18…Peter is forgiven three times…for having denied Jesus three times…and Jesus asks him to “tend” and “feed” his sheep…his Church.

Historical Documents from the Apostolic Fathers:

Irenaeus (Note: Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp. Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John):

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 A.D. 189]).

Tertullian:
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 A.D. 200]).

“[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]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9–10 A.D. 220]).

(Continue reading Truth)

 

[agname]

Ignatius of Antioch (Note: Peter appointed Ignatius to the See of Antioch. Ignatius was a close friend of Polycarp):

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

Eusebius of Caesarea:
“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9–10 A.D. 312]).

Optatus:
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 A.D. 367]).

(Continue reading Truth)

 

[agname]

Cyprian of Carthage:
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … 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 also what Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church**?”** (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition A.D. 251]).

“Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 A.D. 253]).

“Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church” (ibid., 55[52]:1).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men … when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (ibid., 55[52]:8).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

(Continue reading Truth)

 

[agname]

Pope Damasus I:
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 A.D. 382]).

Augustine:
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 A.D. 412]).

(Continue reading Truth)

 

[agname]

Jerome:
“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (Against the Luciferians 23 A.D. 383]).

“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 A.D. 396]).

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (Letters 15:1 A.D. 396]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (ibid., 15:2).

“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).

(Continue reading Truth)

 

[agname]

Augustine:
“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 A.D. 397]).

“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?” (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 A.D. 402]).

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 A.D. 412]).

 

[agname]

The List of Popes (First 50)

For the full list: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) – also called Xystus I
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-22)
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
18. St. Pontain (230-35)
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
20. St. Fabian (236-50)
21. St. Cornelius (251-53)
22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296) – also called Gaius
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34. St. Marcus (336)
35. St. Julius I (337-52)
36. Liberius (352-66)
37. St. Damasus I (366-83)
38. St. Siricius (384-99)
39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
42. St. Boniface I (418-22)
43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
50. Anastasius II (496-98)