Why is Peter considered the first "Pope", if it was James who Peter and Paul answered to?

[Randy_Carson]

Notice that Clement uses presbyters and episcopate interchangeably. He knows nothing about a monarchial bishop in Rome or Corinth, and the letter was from the church of Rome not from Clement himself. Hermas says Grapte and Clement were joint leaders in Rome.

Strange, isn’t it? Irenaeus mentions nothing of Grapte in his list of the successors of Peter. Why not?

I don’t envy you the task of keeping all these balls in the air…

Why should it bother us if the Church transitioned from a period in which Apostles with universal authority lead the Church to the present system of Dioceses and Bishops? This is a discipline and not a doctrine, and the Church has the authority given to her by Christ to organize and manage herself as seems good and necessary. Given that she has outlasted ANY human government before or since, I think she chose wisely.

I think you would benefit from reading the following explanation of this transition:

**Successors of the Apostles **
By Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel,
you are very true to your Protestant roots in your denials that the church has both traditions and a hierarchy, striving ever so desperately to find the truth in scripture alone. Everything in scripture is true. The problem is, scripture doesn’t contain all truth and even the truth it contains must be understood based on tradition. Remember, what the new testament is: 4 biographies of Jesus, the story of the Apostle’s actions in the 30 years or so after Jesus’s ascension, a series of letters to various communities and individuals addressing certain aspects of the Faith and John’s Apocalyptic work. It is not suprising that the New Testament is therefore silent on some issues that were not points of contention. No one needed to say explicitly that Peter was the church’s leader or that a hierarchy was necessary to manage the church or that all the truths were contained in verbal tradition since these were obvious to all involved and were not a matter of dispute. This is the same reason that sometimes issues like the Immaculate Conception are not written explicitly into Dogma until centuries after the fact. They simply weren’t issues in dispute.

if you look back over this thread, you will recognize that all of your arguments are basically ones of scriptural silence, (i.e.< it never says the words, “Peter is our leader”) rather than scriptural denial ( for example, a scriptual passage that defines a leader other than Peter or that demands that each man be his own leader). Such arguments are weak by definition. Compare that to all the scriptural references that demonstrate Peter’s leadership and 2000 years of tradition that confirm it. The truth will set you free

So if one were to ask a Christian living during the NT period, “Who is the head of the church?” there is no doubt they would say Christ, not Peter, because this is precisely what scripture DOES say. One cannot base a theology on what scripture does NOT say. **Scripture does speak clearly on this question **as on others that have come up in discussion…

 

[pete_29]

So if one were to ask a Christian living during the NT period, “Who is the head of the church?” there is no doubt they would say Christ, not Peter, because this is precisely what scripture DOES say. One cannot base a theology on what scripture does NOT say. **Scripture does speak clearly on this question **as on others that have come up in discussion…

If there were a disagreement about church teaching they would tell you to go ask Peter.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

If there were a disagreement about church teaching they would tell you to go ask Peter.

I think they would tell you to ask any of the apostles or the writings being circulated by them and to “study to show yourself approved unto God, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim.2:15). John said:

1 John 4:6
“We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us** (not ‘listens to Peter’); **but whoever is not from God does not listen to us (not ‘listens to Peter’). This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.”

When there was a disagreement about circumcision, they met together with apostles and elders of the church in Acts 15. It is very significant that it does NOT say they went to consult Peter about what to do, which would have been the solution if Peter was in fact the head of the church.

 

[mardukm]

I think they would tell you to ask any of the apostles or the writings being circulated by them and to “study to show yourself approved unto God, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim.2:15).

Which does not refute the necessity of turning to the See of Rome in order to settle questions in dispute between brethren.

John said:
1 John 4:6
“We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us** (not ‘listens to Peter’); **but whoever is not from God does not listen to us (not ‘listens to Peter’). This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.”

Which did not prevent St. Paul himself from turning to Peter ALONE to verify his teaching (i.e., to make sure St. Paul was not running in vain).

When there was a disagreement about circumcision, they met together with apostles and elders of the church in Acts 15. It is very significant that it does NOT say they went to consult Peter about what to do, which would have been the solution if Peter was in fact the head of the church.

Which did not prevent St. James from using the exhortation of St. Peter along with Scripture as the very bases for his own judgment.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Des]

One cannot base a theology on what scripture does NOT say.

Only if one is holding to sola Scriptura which by the way, is silent in Scripture.

 

[twb1621]

The first mention of a singular bishop appears to be in Ignatius. This again demonstrates that Peter was not a singular bishop of any church: Rome or Jerusalem. The fact an ECF may have known an apostle means little. Paul lamented that the Galatians had so soon departed from the gospel.

What it demonstrates is Peter did not sit in one place in the beginning to proclaim the Gospel just as Jesus instructed. Read Acts CH 1-4 … In the early days Peter did not remain in any geographic location as a seat because he was traveling to establish the Gospel and new Churches in the name of Jesus. He established His seat in Rome when he met with Paul after Antioch. However, there are more than enough writings to show he held the primacy even though in the beginning he traveled in the promoting the Gospel. As far as the ECF are concerned, there are several verifications in proclamations they made that show his primacy. All this is verified yet you continue to ignore all of it. Again you provide no support for your beliefs because you are wrong. The truth is what it is.

 

[twb1621]

This passage may help understand a unique role for Peter which no one denies, but not as head of the church on earth and successors for such an office, as no NT author recognized him as such or gave qualification for a successor although qualifications for other offices ARE given: bishops and deacons.

Either you do not read very much at all or you are ignoring just about everything presented to you. Perhaps that is why you have no support for anything you put forward. Go back over the thread, you apparently missed quite a bit.

Yes, I have been to more Catholic churches in Italy than Italians, seen the Vatican several times, and do not doubt Peter may be buried there.

Very nice…

Ireaeus chooses Rome for prominence not for holding the position of an infallible successive head of the church on earth. By the time of Irenaeus, the monarchial bishop model had spread throughout the church.

It was not for Irenaeus to choose anything. It was a statement showing among other things recognition. Where do you come up with this stuff? And how do you pull one thing from many twist it then offer a rebuttal while ignore the remaining like-minded statements? Do you realize there is nothing to support your statements?

These are the qualifications of bishops/presbyters given in letters to Timothy and Titus.

What it is referring to is as it is written, referring to people exactly like you who refute the establishment of the positions of authority.

Notice that Clement uses presbyters and episcopate interchangeably. He knows nothing about a monarchial bishop in Rome or Corinth, and the letter was from the church of Rome not from Clement himself. Hermas says Grapte and Clement were joint leaders in Rome.

He knows nothing of it…? So aside from his writings and recognition of the primacy, you are able to say what he knows and doesn’t know…

You are struggling to save your face, your pride but you will not succeed in attempting to distort the truth. Perhaps you should read another author, say… Scott Hahn?

 

[twb1621]

Notice that Clement uses presbyters and episcopate interchangeably. He knows nothing about a monarchial bishop in Rome or Corinth, .

By the way, the majority of the ECF held these seats and I am sure they (as they wrote) recognized the primacy of Peter.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think they would tell you to ask any of the apostles or the writings being circulated by them and to “study to show yourself approved unto God, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim.2:15). John said:

1 John 4:6
“We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us** (not ‘listens to Peter’); **but whoever is not from God does not listen to us (not ‘listens to Peter’). This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.”

When there was a disagreement about circumcision, they met together with apostles and elders of the church in Acts 15. It is very significant that it does NOT say they went to consult Peter about what to do, which would have been the solution if Peter was in fact the head of the church.

Dan-

By the time 1 John was written toward the end of the first century, all of the Apostles had been martyred, and while there were many authentic gospels and epistles in circulation, even Paul warns about letters purportedly coming from him.

So, now what?

You’re swinging wildly in the dark at this point…

 

[stephraim]

Tertullian

“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’?” “Afterwards, as he himself [Paul] narrates, ‘he went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter,’ [Gal 1:18] because of his office, no doubt, and by right of a common belief and preaching.” Tertullian, On Prescription against Heretics 22, 23, ANF 3:253-54.

Some use Galatians 2:6 as a proof that Paul cared not for human authority. “But from those who were reputed to be important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no impartiality)–those of repute made me add nothing.”

Yet, Paul, “went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also…in accord with a revelation.” Our Lord, then, actually told Paul to consult with the “pillars” of the Church to “present to them the gospel that [he preached] to the Gentiles…so that [he] might not be running, or have run, in vain.” Gal. 2:1-2

 

[stephraim]

I state once again:

As far as Apostolic succession goes, check out Numbers 27:12-23, where God actually commands Moses to lay hands on Joshua and impart his authority to him. This is exactly what the Apostles do in Acts 6:3-6; 10:15-19.

 

[paul_c]

Daniel Keeran,

Let me also point out to you the danger of making assumptions from Scriptural silence (i.e., Scripture doesn’t say " Peter is Pope, therefore he must not have been the leader fo the church)…

Lets look at Acts more closely. After chapter 1, only 5 of the original Apostles are ever mentioned again: Peter, John, James the less and James the Greater, and Philip. What does that mean to you? Do you assume they never did anything again, because surely it would have been reported, right? The fact is tradition tells us that they all continued to spread the gospel until their eventual martyrdom. But you can’t find that in scripture.

The simple fact is, Scripture doesn’t contain ALL of the truth. And in regards to Peter, it is clear from all the action reported that Peter is the leader of the Apostles. In Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem he states that he was chosen to bring the Gentiles into the church. No one disputed that at the council, according to both scripture and tradition.

 

[stephraim]

REPLY: The letter called First Clement does not say it is from Clement.

True, but the Gospels of Matthew and Mark do not say they are from Matthew and Mark either, so how do you know?

The letter does not relate their communication to any special authority of the bishop of Rome.

“Make haste and send our messengers….back to us in peace and joy; so that news of the truce and the unity for which we are praying and longing may reach us the more speedily, and we may the sooner rejoice over your return to order.” (Clement, 65, 1, in Staniforth, Early Christian Writings, 49.)

Lutheran writer Max Lackmann says, “The use of the expression ‘send back’….is a form of Roman imperial command. The Roman judge in a province of the empire ‘sent back’ a messenger or a packet of documents to the imperial capital or to the court of the emperor (Acts 25:21). Clement of Rome doubtless also knew this administrative terminology of the imperial government and used it effectively.” (The Unfinished Reformation, ed. Hans Asmussen [Notre Dame, Ind.: Fides Pub., 1961], 213.)

**In fact, the letter refers to plural bishops used interchangeably with the term presbyters. Ch44: “For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate **those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course…”

All bishops are presbyters, but not all presbyters are bishops. The episcopate is the fullness of the priesthood. Also, even today, a see may have auxiliary bishops, titular bishops beside the bishop to help pastor the flock. Finally, use of plural we does not place individual authority in question (e.g., 1 Cor 1:23; 4:10; 2 Cor 1:12; 8:1; Gal 1:8), so a monarchial bishop, as you put it, is not out of the question.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel Keeran,

Let me also point out to you the danger of making assumptions from Scriptural silence (i.e., Scripture doesn’t say " Peter is Pope, therefore he must not have been the leader fo the church)…

In Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem he states that he was chosen to bring the Gentiles into the church. No one disputed that at the council, according to both scripture and tradition.

If sacred scripture does not say Peter is Pope, by what authority do we say Peter is Pope? Tradition has been wrong before. The papacy must be defined from the beginning in order to be true; one cannot read it back into the silence of scripture. Yes, in Acts 15 Peter says he was first chosen to bring the gospel to Gentiles; why not say right there he was also chosen by the Lord to be head of his church? Because he was not.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

All bishops are presbyters, but not all presbyters are bishops. The episcopate is the fullness of the priesthood. Also, even today, a see may have auxiliary bishops, titular bishops beside the bishop to help pastor the flock. Finally, use of plural we does not place individual authority in question (e.g., 1 Cor 1:23; 4:10; 2 Cor 1:12; 8:1; Gal 1:8), so a monarchial bishop, as you put it, is not out of the question.

First you must establish a distinction between bishops and presbyters who in scripture have the same qualifications and are referred to as the same when Paul addresses the Ephesian presbyters (Acts 20) and when Peter addresses presbyters (1 Peter 5:2-4).

Until Ignatius we do not find any mention of a monarchial bishop, so Peter could not have been a monarchial bishop of either Jerusalem or Rome.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Dan-

By the time 1 John was written toward the end of the first century, all of the Apostles had been martyred, and while there were many authentic gospels and epistles in circulation, even Paul warns about letters purportedly coming from him.

So, now what?

You’re swinging wildly in the dark at this point…

In scripture, whenever there was a disagreement, no one ever said “go ask Peter.”

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I state once again:

Acts 6:3-6
Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."
The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.
They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.

The men were already qualified as deacons, then appointed by the apostles to the task. They however, could not lay on hands but required Peter and John to come down from Jerusalem in Acts 8 for anyone to receive gifts of the Holy Spirit. This is not the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession.

Acts 10:15-19

15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time: That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common. 16 And this was done thrice. And presently the vessel was taken up into heaven. 17 Now, whilst Peter was doubting within himself what the vision that he had seen should mean, behold the men who were sent from Cornelius, inquiring for Simon’s house, stood at the gate. 18 And when they had called, they asked if Simon, who is surnamed Peter, were lodged there. 19 And as Peter was thinking of the vision, the Spirit said to him: Behold three men seek thee.

There is nothing here relevant to the topic.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Tertullian

“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’?” “Afterwards, as he himself [Paul] narrates, ‘he went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter,’ [Gal 1:18] because of his office, no doubt, and by right of a common belief and preaching.” Tertullian, On Prescription against Heretics 22, 23, ANF 3:253-54.

Some use Galatians 2:6 as a proof that Paul cared not for human authority. “But from those who were reputed to be important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no impartiality)–those of repute made me add nothing.”

Yet, Paul, “went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also…in accord with a revelation.” Our Lord, then, actually told Paul to consult with the “pillars” of the Church to “present to them the gospel that [he preached] to the Gentiles…so that [he] might not be running, or have run, in vain.” Gal. 2:1-2

Tertullian adds to scripture that says nothing about Peter holding a unique “office.” Paul names Peter as only one of three pillars: first listed is James, second listed is Cephas, and third listed is John (Galatians 2). Paul knew nothing of Peter as head of the church but only as apostle to the circumcised.

 

[stephraim]

Paul names Peter as only one of three pillars: first listed is James, second listed is Cephas, and third listed is John (Galatians 2). Paul knew nothing of Peter as head of the church but only as apostle to the circumcised.

Yet Paul “went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas [Peter] and remained with for fifteen days.” He saw James, but he went up to visit Peter specifically. There must be a reason.

St. John Chrysostom
“And the only object of this journey was to visit Peter; thus he pays due respect to the Apostles, and esteems himself not only their better but not their equal….He says, ‘to visit Peter’; he does not say to see ἰδεῖν] but to visit and survey ἱστορῆσαι], a word which those who seek to become acquainted with great and splendid cities apply to themselves. Worthy of such trouble did he consider the very sight of Peter; and this appears from the Acts of the Apostles also.” (Commentary on Galatians 1, 18, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st series, ed. Phillip Schaff [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983], 13:12-13)

Strong’s
2477. *historeo *ἱστορέο his-tor-eh’-o from a derivative of 1492 eido; to be knowing (learned), i.e. (by implication) to visit for information (interview):–see.