-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was Peter the First Pope?
- Thread starter t3gah
- Start date
Source :- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htmList of Popes:-
The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17.
In Matthew 16:17-19, the office is solemnly promised to the Apostle. In response to his profession of faith in the Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:
"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven." The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to Peter. His profession of faith was not made as has been sometimes asserted, in the name of the other Apostles. This is evident from the words of Christ. He pronounces on the Apostle, distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a peculiar and personal blessing, declaring that his knowledge regarding the Divine Sonship sprang from a special revelation granted to him by the Father (cf. Matthew 11:27).
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter. . ." He further proceeds to recompense this confession of His Divinity by bestowing upon him a reward proper to himself:
- St. Peter (32-67)
I. INSTITUTION OF A SUPREME HEAD BY CHRIST
The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17.
MATTHEW 16:17-19
In Matthew 16:17-19, the office is solemnly promised to the Apostle. In response to his profession of faith in the Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:
Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven." The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to Peter. His profession of faith was not made as has been sometimes asserted, in the name of the other Apostles. This is evident from the words of Christ. He pronounces on the Apostle, distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a peculiar and personal blessing, declaring that his knowledge regarding the Divine Sonship sprang from a special revelation granted to him by the Father (cf. Matthew 11:27).
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter. . ." He further proceeds to recompense this confession of His Divinity by bestowing upon him a reward proper to himself:
Thou art Peter [Cepha, transliterated also Kipha] and upon this rock [Cepha] I will build my Church.
The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church. The term ecclesia (ekklesia) here employed is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew qahal, the name which denoted the Hebrew nation viewed as God's Church (see THE CHURCH, I).
Malus 12:9
Temporarily Deactive.
May I ask, t3gah, why one minute you ask "Was Peter the first Pope?" Then you come
out with "The NT states Peter was Satan".
Somehow, if Peter was Satan, why would he be elected Pope?
out with "The NT states Peter was Satan".
Somehow, if Peter was Satan, why would he be elected Pope?
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Michel,
As brash as Peter was, he never claimed to be the Pope. The office was never reffered to at all in the NT. The other Apostles did not exalt him as such either, and there were no means of succession devised.
The Pope is part an parcel the "head" of the Catholic Priesthood. The whole thrust of the NT was that ALL Christians are priests and need no additional help in reaching God. In fact it was Peter who us told we are ALL ROYAL PRIESTS. There can be no higher other than Jesus:
I Peter 2:4 As you come to him, the living Stonerejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame." 7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone," 8 and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the messagewhich is also what they were destined for.
9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. NIV
In addition, we have no need for any other "High Priest" other than Jesus:
Hebrews 7:23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
26 Such a high priest meets our needone who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. NIV
As brash as Peter was, he never claimed to be the Pope. The office was never reffered to at all in the NT. The other Apostles did not exalt him as such either, and there were no means of succession devised.
The Pope is part an parcel the "head" of the Catholic Priesthood. The whole thrust of the NT was that ALL Christians are priests and need no additional help in reaching God. In fact it was Peter who us told we are ALL ROYAL PRIESTS. There can be no higher other than Jesus:
I Peter 2:4 As you come to him, the living Stonerejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame." 7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone," 8 and,
"A stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the messagewhich is also what they were destined for.
9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. NIV
In addition, we have no need for any other "High Priest" other than Jesus:
Hebrews 7:23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
26 Such a high priest meets our needone who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. NIV
Uncertaindrummer
Active Member
And yet the evidence has been put forth. Disagree with it if you li,e but to say there is "no" evidence is somewhat absurd.njcl said:
Stormygale
Member
LOL. Who cares if Peter was the first pope. He's been dead a long time. I believe with all honesty that ttooooo much emphasis is cast on the 'office' of a pope. A pope is one appointed by the people, not by God. During the recent passing of John Paul, I was appauled to see how much emphasis was cast on the pope. He is not God. I know people will come and say that they were missing him because he was a great man and did wonderous marvels and the such. I agree. Yet, he was put up on a pedistal as a God. That confuses me...
-
As for Peter being the first pope...
Was he Catholic.
Probably not.
-
As for Peter being the first pope...
Was he Catholic.
Probably not.
Uncertaindrummer
Active Member
Seeing as no one worshipped the Pope or does now, I don't get your point. Either way, I would argue Peter was Catholic, but this thread seems to have died...Stormygale said:
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Hmnnnn...
The real question would be whether Peter considered himself Catholic or just Christian?
The real question would be whether Peter considered himself Catholic or just Christian?
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Revisionism at it's finest!
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Peter's Catholicism.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
ND,
Catholicism is a designation of Christianity....
Peter was a Christian, and so am I.
The nascent "church" of the Bible incurred growth/change..... remember, Peter didn't have the Bible to read either.... so to call Peter "Catholic" is just as valid as calling him a "Bible only Christian"....... except for the one small detail of there being no Bible (as you now know it)at the time.
Catholicism is a designation of Christianity....
Peter was a Christian, and so am I.
The nascent "church" of the Bible incurred growth/change..... remember, Peter didn't have the Bible to read either.... so to call Peter "Catholic" is just as valid as calling him a "Bible only Christian"....... except for the one small detail of there being no Bible (as you now know it)at the time.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Using that logic Scott, then Peter was also Lutheran, Methodist and JW... though he never called himself such. While I can't fully devine Peter's will here, I do know that Paul would have had HUGE issues with being lumped into any such "denomination".
I Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospelnot with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. NIV
I Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospelnot with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. NIV
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Well, I don't consider JW's to be Christian..... but in your other examples I believe he is/was! There is only ONE body of Christ. There is ONE faith, ONE Baptism, ONE Church. We are all Christians.NetDoc said:
Are you saying that Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Methodists etc DON'T follow Christ?
That's a pretty awful thing to say.... I doubt that's what you mean.
Are the only "true" followers of Christ "non-denominational" Protestants?
Uncertaindrummer
Active Member
Catholics consider themselve not only Christians, but we have the fullness of Christianity. Names are just for convenience. It is much easier to say Lutherans, and Methodist, than "Those Christians who follow Luther's teachings" etc.NetDoc said: