Was Peter a Pope

[agname]

Irenaeus:
“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church” (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], (ibid., 3, 3, 3). they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. … To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us"

 

[agname]

Gaius:
"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Disputation with Proclus A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).

Augustine:
"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]).

All of these documents can be found in any of the halls…of those who propagate erudition.

 

[agname]

Perhaps this article will help you on your journey.

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ53.HTM

 

[Serafin]

jimmy:

serafin

I wasn’t using it to support the papacy. I was just showing that his arguement is flawed.

Thankyou for the clarification

Blessings

Serafin

 

[Serafin]

agname:

It’s good that you read that post…now read my others.

Finally, the Anglican paperwork points to King Henry VIII.

You really believe that don’t you? Oh well!

Just is case you may want to expand your horizons here is an interesting link…and lo…Henry is nowhere in the list!

ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/success1.htm

I have read all your posts, but not seen your comments about Pope Peter in Scripture.

Blessings

Serafin

 

[David_F]

Serafin:

The question is, wether the way “Pope” and the perrogatives of that office as presently understood, would apply to Peter! The behaviour and words of Peter and his peers as found in Scripture, do not seem to correlate to what we now mean when we say Pope!

Hello Ser,

Can you** list** some of these scriptural references that illustrate the type of “behaviour” that doesn’t correlate to what “you” now mean when “you” say Pope? Forgive me for changing your we to you. I am not certain that we say and mean the same thing when we reference our holy father.

Earlier on this thread I** asked the same question** in regards to Acts 15. But still have not received any specifics. I look forward to your response. Peace be with you.
YBIC,
david

 

[Tom]

Serafin:

The question is, wether the way “Pope” and the perrogatives of that office as presently understood, would apply to Peter!

I think I see your point, and no, the office of Pope today is slightly different today than 2,000 years ago, mainly because the world is slightly different. The teachings are the same, the authority is the same, but how that authority is carried out is different. For example in those days it wasn’t difficult for a dozen people to sit and discuss problems, today, how many Christians are there? A few more than 2,000 years ago, so can the pope sit around with his dozen friends and calmly discuss the few problems? In Peter’s day I doubt they could fathom nuclear war, or the genocide of millions of babies, or AIDS, or child molestation. The world is different, that’s why our Lord Jesus the Christ left us the Holy Spirit to guide us. The Church is a living entity; it didn’t die 2,000 years ago and remain exactly the same.

 

[steve_b]

Serafin:

The problem I have always had 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… [snip]… when he went to the house of Cornelius as recorded in the book of Acts. Didn’t they realize he had said authority?

When Jesus said to Peter, “I give you the keys to the kingdom” the Greek word for “you” in that verse is soi, 2nd person singular not plural. Therefore Peter got the keys alone. As far as how people acted towards Peter, that doesn’t change how Jesus sees Peter, correct?.

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. …[snip]…

Looking at the specific texts mentioned, it seems to me that James, bishop of Jerusalem, ratified what Peter said. No problem

What is wrong with that picture, do not they realize Peter is the steward with the authority and the keys and all?

Well, they did fall silent after Peter spoke.

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

In the extreme, what about Ananias and Sapphira? They both fell dead at Peter’s feet after lieing to him. I’d call that pretty forceful wouldn’t you?

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?

I don’t think so, and personally, I think many people trivialize key texts. Look at how Jesus prayed for Peter specifically, so that after his fall, he would regain himself and turn and strengthen the other apostles Lk 22:32. I’d call that hugely significant. Jesus is fully supporting His Father’s choice to lead His Church. After the resurrection, Jesus singled Peter out again, and again, in front of all the apostles, He commissions Peter to feed and rule His sheep. Jn 21 A definite function of the keys. That word for rule is often translated as tend, but the Greek word is poimaino, It also means to rule with an iron hand.

Just tossing in my two cents. Carry on, I’m enjoying the thread.

 

[ATexasCatholic]

What I want to know is why are we posting things from a anti-catholic rag on a Catholic web site? I know he was the Pope from what the Bible tells me.

 

[jimmy]

Here is a link to some scriptures that back up the papacy.

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

 

[TimL]

Both the Holy Scriptures and the early Church Fathers are exceedingly clear that Peter was the leader of the Apostles. Those who find that their own personal doctrine in conflict with the Bible and the Fathers must recognize that one or the other is wrong. Either the Bible and the Fathers are wrong or their doctrine is wrong. Those that seek to refute the role that Peter played in the early Church, and the role that his successor plays in the Church today, do so to their own detriment.

God Bless You All, Tim

 

[TAquinas]

TimL:

Both the Holy Scriptures and the early Church Fathers are exceedingly clear that Peter was the leader of the Apostles. Those who find that their own personal doctrine in conflict with the Bible and the Fathers must recognize that one or the other is wrong. Either the Bible and the Fathers are wrong or their doctrine is wrong. Those that seek to refute the role that Peter played in the early Church, and the role that his successor plays in the Church today, do so to their own detriment.

God Bless You All, Tim

Tim: Exactly. And if the evidence weren’t enough from that end of the historical continuum, then direct your attention to the religious scene after the Protestant “Reformation”—They decided they didn’t need a pope for unity. The result was that there were splits among them early on–this increased in number and frequency until we have the wholesale disintegration of today—more than 30,000 denominations, each still convinced that it doesn’t need a pope! It does make you wonder how high the numbers have to go before it begins to register that maybe the Catholic Church has a valid point about the pope being necessary.