Was Peter truly the first Pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter deondre
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Continued

[3] Here is the third evidence from history

[3] http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110])

Irenaeus
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 successions 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, 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 (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189])

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved**? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200])**.

Tertullian
[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]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220])

My friend, if you’d like even more detailed information and are willing to share E-Mail addresses; I will send you this as one document; along with other verifiable information proving Peters Primacy that you can share.

God Bless you
Pat
 
Great posts (as usual) PJM.

Maybe later I can add to this discussion.

Right now I am in a bed using my Android tablet.

I really need to be at my computer in the other room to pull out the information I would like to (but sitting up that long at a computer is problematic right now).

(Here is why). Maybe in a few days.
 
Last edited:
deondre.

Affirm BOTH CCC 424 AND CCC 881.

I would insist on them both.

Then use the absence of completeness of your pastors argument against his position.

PJM is giving you a great defense for the CCC 881 portion.
 
Last edited:
Good answers already given here.

It doesn’t solely rest on that one chapter, though it is a good one.

Notice he goes on to give the keys as well. Don’t let the Protestant transfer the subject elsewhere amid the multiple times Jesus refers to Peter as “you” throughout the narrative

The book of Acts is filled with examples of Peter leading the church, though he will fight you on this in a similar manner

Christian tradition also supports Petrine primacy,especially Irenaeus of Lyon and Ignatius of Antioch

Strong, multi-layered case for it.

Weak, inconsistent argument against
 
Last edited:
My FRIEND, God is on your side. Know that you ARE in my daily thoughts and prayers

Thank you for the kind words

Blessings and prayers

Patrick
 
The Church - and no one else - gets to say whether or not it has a pope, and if so, who that was and is. Rome has spoken. This is a non-issue.

Still doubt? Watch Dr. William Marshner, scholar and former Lutheran. He has no doubts.
 
Last edited:
deondre said:
But the name Peter in Greek is “petras,” not “petra” which is used in the passage.
Click to expand...
No, his name in Greek is Petros. Petros is the Masculine.
Mat 16:18 AndG1161 I say alsoG2504 G3004 unto thee,G4671 ThatG3754 thouG4771 artG1488 Peter,G4074 andG2532 uponG1909 thisG5026 rockG4073 I will buildG3618 myG3450 church;G1577 andG2532 the gatesG4439 of hellG86 shall notG3756 prevail > againstG2729 it.G846

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Click to expand...
G4074 Πέτρος Petros pet’-ros
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock. Compare G2786.
Click to expand...
G4073 πέτρα petra pet’-ra
Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock.
Click to expand...
Hence the English Translation should be:
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Rock, and upon Rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Click to expand...
Side Note:
Joh_1:42 AndG2532 he broughtG71 himG846 toG4314 Jesus.G2424 AndG1161 when JesusG2424 beheldG1689 him,G846 he said,G2036 ThouG4771 artG1488 SimonG4613 theG3588 sonG5207 of Jona:G2495 thouG4771 shalt be calledG2564 Cephas,G2786 whichG3739 is by interpretation,G2059 A stone.G4074

Joh 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
My problem is not as you have stated in the title. I actually think some good arguments are made regarding that. My question is rather “should we assume Pope Francis is the actual successor of Peter” when we look at the line of Popes.

So I know a poster who likes to post and ask readers to “Google the line of Popes”. Well I actually did that very extensively and the conclusion wasn’t what the poster intended. Rather having a “dove on a shoulder” Papacy, the Holy Roman Emperors personally choosing a successor, having a previous Pope choosing his successor until we get to the Conclave and Cardinals (yes it has not always been there). So from there we had the Tusculan papacy with a kid becoming Pope (I guess if the family is rich ANYTHING is possible) up until the papal veto (search it, it was a thing).

So it is not about the source. It is the result that should make one think, maybe the source wasn’t actually meant how it is “perceived”.

So yea. I guess the post was aimed at the Papacy or something so therefore my answer. If not, please ignore my post?

Regards
 
Last edited:
That exactly have to be Peter, for he is the rock that the Church is built on, as has been said.

The present day - she is the Catholic Church, through the line of Peter’s successors, yes till today, and yes, till Pope Francis.

Jesus said about this Church that the Gate of Hell will not prevail against it. His word is true, that’s why the Church is still standing.
 
Hi, I’m the culpert your disagreeing with.

**The REAL issue my friend as evidenced by a continuous 2,000 YEAR history; is NOT who choose the Pope; rather was THAT Pope GOD’S choice; to which the answer is evidently YES.

The CHURCH founded, guided and protected by Jesus Christ AND the Holy Spirit [and NO other faith or church can make that claim with evidence] is today’s and yesterday’s RCC

John.14: [26] But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach YOU all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to YOU

The Bible is a Catholic Book; the OT was selected, guided by the HS, all 46 books and the entire NT was written BY Catholics and Exclusively FOR Catholics, who were the ONLY Early Christians.

John.17:17 to 20 [17] Sanctify THEM in the truth; thy word is truth. [18] As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. [19] And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. [20] "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word

John.8: [45] But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.

John.16:[13] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Matt.28: [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

THE RCC MY FRIEND, WITH ITS ONE TRUE SET OF FAITH BELIEFS,AND ITS 2,000 YEAR HISTORY, GIVE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF BEING HS GUIDED. Amen!

May GOD guide your path

Patrick
 
Is the Pope Catholic? If Jesus is our Savior, and if He is God incarnate, and if He is incapable of deceiving or of being deceived, we must trust His word, correct?

“The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Does not matter if it was Pater or Peter’s confession of faith on which Christ founded His Church. We have His divine promise. He founded it and the gates of hell shall not prevail. To doubt that is to doubt Christ .

When questioning one’s faith, or encountering doubts, it is good to read, re-read and ponder this promise of His.

Those who split off, for whatever “reason” have forfeited their authority.
 
Last edited:
You are saying many things here I didn’t even touch upon. What I am not seeing is a reply to the post you “replied” to.

Regards
 
I explained there that I could agree with what you have stated. Yet I asked a question you didn’t even touch upon.

Meaning don’t say history as that is my very question and I think I was clear. That is my question?

Regards
 
Hi PJM

I have come to respect you very much. I however do not think you answered my problem. I gave numerous reasons why this may seem “dodge”. And why saying “google the list of popes” does not hold.

That was my point.

Regards
 
Confession (the Sacrament of Reconciliation) is administered by priests, which is what Matthew 18 and John 20 support…

Whereas Matthew 16 was directed specifically to Peter. All priests, bishops, etc. bind and loose on God’s behalf, but Peter’s office is the one delegated the responsibility of determining via the Holy Spirit, the guidelines that are to be - or not be - adhered to.
 
Trent Horn’s “The Case for Catholicism” goes very in depth on this Protestant objection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top