Was Peter the first Pope?

[mmmcounts]

As a follow-up, is the Pope Catholic? If both of these get a “yes” answer, that means Peter was the only Jewish Catholic Pope ever. And he never even knew it. I don’t believe he would have ever called himself a Catholic. He also would not have called himself the Pope, nor would anyone else while he was alive. I must say, if I was the Pope, I would enjoy it a lot more if I at least knew at some point in my life that I was, in fact, the Pope. In what sense can we call him a Pope? It’s got to be substantially different from the way we would refer to Benedict XVI, John Paul II, or any of those de’ Medicis as Pope.

 

[EphelDuath]

As a follow-up, is the Pope Catholic? If both of these get a “yes” answer, that means Peter was the only Jewish Catholic Pope ever.

Er, what? How exactly do you know that he was the only Pope from Judea?

And he never even knew it. I don’t believe he would have ever called himself a Catholic.

Right, the term “Catholic” didn’t exist yet. If you’re saying that he didn’t know he was the Bishop of Rome, that’s pretty funny, considering he left a successor.

He also would not have called himself the Pope, nor would anyone else while he was alive.

Same thing: the term “Pope” wasn’t used to describe the Bishop of Rome until later.

 

[VociMike]

As a follow-up, is the Pope Catholic? If both of these get a “yes” answer, that means Peter was the only Jewish Catholic Pope ever.

Jewish convert, you mean. And unless you know the lineage of all the early popes, you cannot truthfully make such a statement, so why would you?

And he never even knew it.

Did he tell you this directly?

I don’t believe he would have ever called himself a Catholic. He also would not have called himself the Pope, nor would anyone else while he was alive.

Terms reflect reality, they don’t create reality.

I must say, if I was the Pope, I would enjoy it a lot more if I at least knew at some point in my life that I was, in fact, the Pope.

Ahh, so what’s important is enjoying being the Pope. That makes your point of view much more clear. “It’s good to be the King…er…Pope!” I must search for that point of view in the Gospels.

 

[tobinatorstark]

St.Peter did know his earthly titles. The title of Pope didn’t become in use until the 300s. I think Pope Damasus I was the first to use that title. As back then Catholic wasn’t a word. I wouldn’t think that he would be considered as a Jew because of his testimony to Christ.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, actually “katolicos” (sp?) was the Greek word for universal, and St. Ignatius used it in AD 100 in reference to the Church “Where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”), and St. Ignatius was taught by the apostles themselves. . .so actually I think St. Peter would have been familiar with the term of “Catholic” as we know it. It’s also not unlikely that St. Peter would have been addressed by endearing titles/ nicknames and that he was addressed as papa, father, even “ABBA” etc. at least by St. Mark (John Mark) as St. Mark’s gospel traditionally is said to have been influenced by St. Peter.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As a follow-up, is the Pope Catholic? If both of these get a “yes” answer,

“Both of these”? There’s only one question.

that means Peter was the only Jewish Catholic Pope ever.

Quite possibly. There has only been English pope, too.

And he never even knew it.

Knew what? That he was the only Jewish pope?

I don’t believe he would have ever called himself a Catholic.

Possibly though this is debatable. The first recorded use of the phrase “Catholic Church” is found in a letter written by Ignatius of Antioch (Peter’s former stomping ground) around 107 A.D., and the use of the term suggests that his writers would have been familiar with it. Thus, the term had been coined earlier. Whether it was in circulation prior to the death of Peter is hard to say.

All that said, there is NO debate on the fact that others WOULD have called the Church by the name, “Catholic Church” in the first 2-3 centuries. We know this from their writings.

He also would not have called himself the Pope, nor would anyone else while he was alive.

True enough. Peter spoke Aramaic and Greek and probably some Latin, so a term derived from more modern languages would have been unknown to him.

I must say, if I was the Pope, I would enjoy it a lot more if I at least knew at some point in my life that I was, in fact, the Pope.

Peter was busy living the calling given to him by Christ. He knew the responsibilities of the office of Pope even if the title was a few centuries to come.

In what sense can we call him a Pope? It’s got to be substantially different from the way we would refer to Benedict XVI, John Paul II, or any of those de’ Medicis as Pope.

Peter was the Bishop of Rome (who we also know as the Pope) just as fully as any Bishop of Rome since.

What was different about the substance of his pontificate from that of any other that followed?

 

[Nita]

Well, actually “katolicos” (sp?) was the Greek word for universal, and St. Ignatius used it in AD 100 in reference to the Church “Where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”), and St. Ignatius was taught by the apostles themselves. . .so actually I think St. Peter would have been familiar with the term of “Catholic” as we know it.

Hi Tantum,

I’d just add that St. Peter certainly knew the Church was to be Catholic (universal) since Our Lord’s final instructions were to baptize and make disciples of all nations (Mt. 28:19).

Nita

 

[ferdie]

As a follow-up, is the Pope Catholic? If both of these get a “yes” answer, that means Peter was the only Jewish Catholic Pope ever. And he never even knew it. I don’t believe he would have ever called himself a Catholic. He also would not have called himself the Pope, nor would anyone else while he was alive. I must say, if I was the Pope, I would enjoy it a lot more if I at least knew at some point in my life that I was, in fact, the Pope. In what sense can we call him a Pope? It’s got to be substantially different from the way we would refer to Benedict XVI, John Paul II, or any of those de’ Medicis as Pope./

quote]
It seems that you don’t understand the burden and responsibility the pope is carrying.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Why does the person always run away?

He probably thinks he’s going to get us thinking.
Well we’ve heard it 100 times before!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why does the person always run away?

He probably thinks he’s going to get us thinking.
Well we’ve heard it 100 times before!

Hmmm…21 posts and 21 threads initiated.

Doesn’t want to engage in much discussion does s/he?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Though the term pope wasn’t used way back then, St. Peter knew he was head of the Church. He was the apostle who “shall be called Cephas(Peter)”. Jesus founded his Church on the foundation of Peter, the rock (Matthew 16:18).

Scripture indicates it is Peter that is the primary over the apostles. It is he who has authority over the others and the early Church.

Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list. Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29) Peter preached to the crowds on Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).

It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas, and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23).

He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11).

Read what an early Christian had to say on St. Peter’s role in the Church and his successors.

Cyprian of Carthage, an early bishop of the Church, wrote this in AD 251.

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . 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 that also which 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]).​

 

[mdcpensive1]

If mmmcounts does not want to engage a conversation I just want to thank all of you for taking the time to give answers on this subject. Time is a precious commodity to be used for the right purposes.

mdcpensive1

 

[MarcoPolo]

Thanks mdcpensive,

Also, I find the “he didn’t even know it” a peculiar criticism. Because I don’t believe Paul knew he was writing Scripture when he wrote. For instance:*1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.*If Paul knew he was transmitting God’s word, he wouldn’t say what he was saying was “not” the words of the Lord.*1 Corinthians 1:15 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.*Did the Holy Spirit forget to jog Paul’s memory?

 

[mmmcounts]

“And unless you know the lineage of all the early popes, you cannot truthfully make such a statement, so why would you?”
A pope’s ethnicity/country of origin is not so hard to figure out. You tell me, have the Messianic Jews produced any popes?

“Did he tell you this directly?”
Wow, that’s annoying. Would he have to? The obvious answer is no. There are ways to know this besides him telling me directly. If you’re going to say he was the pope, I’m gonna ask you if he told you that directly. If you say no, it invalidates your claim. Does that make sense? Or is it just a waste of time and space here? I submit the latter, if you don’t mind.

“Terms reflect reality, they don’t create reality.”
And if we traveled back in time to see what Peter’s reality was, the term reflecting his reality would not be Pope. So stop trying to make his reality conform to your favorite term.

“Ahh, so what’s important is enjoying being the Pope.”
Nope, what’s important is the reality of me being Pope. If I lived my entire life believing and acting as if I wasn’t the Pope, and so did everyone else in the world, the reality of the situation would be that I’m not the Pope. If people came along 1500 years after my death and started calling me Pope, the term would not be accurate to my reality while I was alive, and since that’s the case, I would not have gotten to enjoy being Pope during that time. The fact that I don’t get to enjoy being Pope is really just a secondary complaint. The most important thing is that I am not now nor will I ever be the Pope, even if a billion people do start attaching the term to me long after my death. This kind of action does not cause me to be any more of a Pope while I’m alive. And it won’t make me a Pope when I’m dead, either. Now pretend I’m Peter and you’ll understand why Peter wasn’t a Pope.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So much speculation and yet. . .no proof, mmmcounts.

Why should we pretend you’re Peter?

St. Peter existed, St. Peter knew He was given the charge by Christ to lead the Church… . that makes him Pope because that is who is the Pope is. It doesn’t matter whether they called him “Pope Peter”, or whether they called him “Father Peter”, or even plain “Peter”. . .

The Queen of the England is the Queen of England whether or not a person addresses her as “Your Majesty”, “La Reine D’Ingleterre”, or “yo, babe”.

 

[adrift]

"

. If I lived my entire life believing and acting as if I wasn’t the Pope, and so did everyone else in the world, the reality of the situation would be that I’m not the Pope. If people came along 1500 years after my death and started calling me Pope, the term would not be accurate to my reality while I was alive, and since that’s the case, I would not have gotten to enjoy being Pope during that time. The fact that I don’t get to enjoy being Pope is really just a secondary complaint. The most important thing is that I am not now nor will I ever be the Pope, even if a billion people do start attaching the term to me long after my death. This kind of action does not cause me to be any more of a Pope while I’m alive. And it won’t make me a Pope when I’m dead, either. Now pretend I’m Peter and you’ll understand why Peter wasn’t a Pope.

The meaning of Pope is father. Paul referred to himself as father. I don’t think it a stretch that the other Apostles would do the same. Peter acted as leader that can be demonstrated. So your premise is wrong.

 

[adrift]

“And unless you know the lineage of all the early popes, you cannot truthfully make such a statement, so why would you?”
A pope’s ethnicity/country of origin is not so hard to figure out. You tell me, have the Messianic Jews produced any popes?

Very little is known of the early Popes. However, it doesn’t matter all who followed Jesus became Christians.
"

Did he tell you this directly?"
Wow, that’s annoying. Would he have to? The obvious answer is no. There are ways to know this besides him telling me directly. If you’re going to say he was the pope, I’m gonna ask you if he told you that directly. If you say no, it invalidates your claim. Does that make sense? Or is it just a waste of time and space here? I submit the latter, if you don’t mind.

I think his point is that you make a claim that cannot be substantiated. Peter’s actions shows that he knew he was the leader.
Please mmmcounts learn to use the quote features. You will get better responses. It is hard to tell what you are answering.

 

[VociMike]

“And unless you know the lineage of all the early popes, you cannot truthfully make such a statement, so why would you?”
A pope’s ethnicity/country of origin is not so hard to figure out. You tell me, have the Messianic Jews produced any popes?

In the first place, please learn how to use the quote feature. Otherwise deciphering your replies is just too much work.

I know nothing about the Messianic Jews. You claimed that Peter was the only “Jewish Catholic Pope” and I want to know how you know this.

“Did he tell you this directly?”
Wow, that’s annoying. Would he have to? The obvious answer is no. There are ways to know this besides him telling me directly. If you’re going to say he was the pope, I’m gonna ask you if he told you that directly. If you say no, it invalidates your claim. Does that make sense? Or is it just a waste of time and space here? I submit the latter, if you don’t mind.

All you had to do was submit your authority for stating what you stated. My authority is the unbroken witness of the Catholic Church.

“Terms reflect reality, they don’t create reality.”
And if we traveled back in time to see what Peter’s reality was, the term reflecting his reality would not be Pope. So stop trying to make his reality conform to your favorite term.

His reality was that he was Bishop of Rome, individual holder of the keys of the kingdom, individually given the power to bind and loose heaven itself, individually commanded by Christ to feed his lambs and tend his sheep. That’s the pope.

“Ahh, so what’s important is enjoying being the Pope.”
Nope, what’s important is the reality of me being Pope. If I lived my entire life believing and acting as if I wasn’t the Pope, and so did everyone else in the world, the reality of the situation would be that I’m not the Pope.

Once again I ask you to demonstrate the truth of what you posit. You sure seem to think you have a lot of private information about the way things were 2000 years ago.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nope, what’s important is the reality of me being Pope. If I lived my entire life believing and acting as if I wasn’t the Pope, and so did everyone else in the world, the reality of the situation would be that I’m not the Pope. If people came along 1500 years after my death and started calling me Pope, the term would not be accurate to my reality while I was alive, and since that’s the case, I would not have gotten to enjoy being Pope during that time. The fact that I don’t get to enjoy being Pope is really just a secondary complaint. The most important thing is that I am not now nor will I ever be the Pope, even if a billion people do start attaching the term to me long after my death. This kind of action does not cause me to be any more of a Pope while I’m alive. And it won’t make me a Pope when I’m dead, either. Now pretend I’m Peter and you’ll understand why Peter wasn’t a Pope.

It’s not the title, it’s the OFFICE that made Peter what he was…the office he received from Jesus Himself…one that Peter was VERY conscious of occupying. Whether he enjoyed it (or whether any pope enjoys it) is irrelevant.

If one thousand years from now, people are calling the person who heads up the executive branch of the US government the “Grand Poobah” instead of “Mr. President”, it won’t matter a hoot if someone like you claims that George Washington wasn’t the first “Grand Poobah” because Ol’ George wasn’t familiar with that term. He would still have been the first president.

And there is no question of Peter’s position as Head of the Church as Matthew 16:18 and John 21:15-18.

There is also no question of the Twelve holding the “Office” of Apostle. Why, the scriptures themselves reference the “bishoprick” of Judas in Acts 1:20 (KJV).

So, it’s time to get over this idea that just because the Bishop of Rome was not called “pope” in the Bible, the term is thereby made invalid.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The Queen of the England is the Queen of England whether or not a person addresses her as “Your Majesty”, “La Reine D’Ingleterre”, or “yo, babe”.

A good point!