Who WAS the first pope?

V

Vanaze

New Member
I myself am not a catholic, but I have many catholic friends who are dedicated to their faith and to Jesus, and I admire that. I do, however, manage to miss where the general catholic concensus is that Peter was the first pope. I can not find anywhere in the new testament where this is pointed out, nor does Peter ever claim the title of pontiff to himself.

As a matter of fact, I would think he would avoid that position, being humble as he was. While Christ did say he would build his church upon Peter, the "little stone", he never said that Peter was the cornerstone or that leader of the church. That place was reserved for Christ Himself.

Peter seems to be concerned with this matter when he says in I Peter 5:3 that his "successors" would be more concerned with "Lording it over God's flock, rather than showing themselves examples to the flock."

As far as I can see from history, not tradition, is that Gregory the First would have been the first true pope.

Eh, let's not argue on this, PLEASE. Not my intentions. Just want some input from both sides of Christianity, preferably from the Catholic area. Have some proof as well before you post, please! :-D

Thanks all.

Van
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (CCGR @ Oct. 20 2003,3:37)]well let's not forget Peter was married
Click to expand...
Peter? Married? Nah...
See, when the Bible mentions his wife, it is symbolic...not a literal wife, but you know, the church.
Just like Jesus' bros and sis were symbolic siblings.
;)
(Yes, that was me being funny. I've met som RCs who make that claim.)

On a similar topic...but serious...
Why Greg the Great? I mean, I can see arguing that Pete wasn't really the Pope...but 590 seems a bit late. I mean, at the very least...the Roman Church had to have been founded before Constantine, else why would there have been a big deal about "moving" it to Byzabtium?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Vanaze @ Oct. 20 2003,2:08)]I myself am not a catholic, but I have many catholic friends who are dedicated to their faith and to Jesus, and I admire that.  I do, however, manage to miss where the general catholic concensus is that Peter was the first pope.  I can not find anywhere in the new testament where this is pointed out, nor does Peter ever claim the title of pontiff to himself.  

As a matter of fact, I would think he would avoid that position, being humble as he was.  While Christ did say he would build his church upon Peter, the "little stone", he never said that Peter was the cornerstone or that leader of the church.  That place was reserved for Christ Himself.

Peter seems to be concerned with this matter when he says  in I Peter 5:3 that his "successors" would be more concerned with "Lording it over God's flock, rather than showing themselves examples to the flock."

As far as I can see from history, not tradition, is that Gregory the First would have been the first true pope.

Eh, let's not argue on this, PLEASE.  Not my intentions.  Just want some input from both sides of Christianity, preferably from the Catholic area.  Have some proof as well before you post, please! :-D

Thanks all.

Van
Click to expand...
A Rose by any other name. Christ said of Peter "Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and it will prevail until the End of Time, even against the very gates of Hell".

Then we have the other Apostles apparently acknowledging Peter's leadership. Paul acknowledged that Peter was the Head of the Church of the Jews (while he himself usurped that of the Gentiles -- illegally). Peter was the man who stepped up to speak at the Pentacost. Peter was the Man.

Now, the whole idea of the Catholic Church is its Apostolic Succession -- that means that the Bishops are able to trace themselves back to the Original "Bishops" -- that is apostles.

Your confusion is in words. "Pope" is a derivative of the word "Pappa" -- its an affectionate epithet which is used as title for Head of the Church, which is what Peter was, just as "Bishop" is a word for what the Apostles were.
 
The Catholic Church was founded by Peter, and then taken to be the state church of ROME.
Hense it became by rule of arms, the ROMAN CATHOLIC church.
No one could stand up to the Romanization of The church and live to tell about it.
i am nothing0
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (adelpit346 @ Oct. 22 2003,11:14)]The Catholic Church was founded by Peter, and then taken to be the state church of ROME.
Hense it became by rule of arms, the ROMAN CATHOLIC church.
No one could stand up to the Romanization of The church and live to tell about it.
i am nothing0
JESUS IS THE LORD1PRAISE THE LORD1THE LORD YESHUA. AMEN
Click to expand...
Yes, and that is how it should be today.

Did not Christ speak in Terms of The Kingdom of God. He continuously spoke of a King sending His Son. This tells me that the Church has ever been meant from the very inception to be Absolute and rooted in Secular Authority. Every Christian is a traitor to Christ who does not actively plot for a Christian Theocracy. The Catholic Church not only pursued their duty as Christians, but realized their goal successfully. Only heretics would complain. Afterall, if God were on your side, then your faction would have won, no? But God appeared to Constantine on the field of Battle and told him that if he were to fight for the Sign of the Cross of Christ, he would be victorious. The Pope was to crown subsequent Emperors, but God himself crowned the first Holy Roman Emperor.
 
Heh, that totally deterred from the original topic I had in mind, but eh, thanks for your input. I understand completely where you're coming from Leo, as far as Peter being recognized as the leader of the church. BUT Christ said He'd build His church upon Peter's CONFESSION, not Peter himself. To further illustrate my thoughts on this, I still have a question for you, if that was not enough: Christ is the head of the church. He is the cornerstone. Peter was but a "small rock", although the first one. Does that make him "papa" as default, though? No. He had a wife. That's a no-no for the pope. God is the head of the church, not a man. God leads and directs the church. Not a man. And while SOME of the popes (not all of them; many of them were as bloody and evil as some Roman emperors) did great things, they are still just that......MAN.
I am familiar with the early church history and such, but Peter had little influence on how the western church was ran after the "headquarters" was moved to Rome (Unless I missed something or i'm just talking out of my butt. It's late, and I'm woozy, but still replying. excuse me if I mess something up -_-). I was always more under the impression that Peter was more influencing on the people one-on-one than he was with the institutionalization of the church. I thought Paul was most instrumental in setting up the church, and seeing how the organization of the church really didn't get up and running (systematically speaking) until later in the century that Peter lived, it seems improbable that he would/could have been pope. Furthermore, Peter did not personally believe that Christ died for anyone else besides the Jews, from what I recall. Paul on the other hand thought Christ died for all, Jewish and gentile. If that be true, why would Peter "rule" over non-Jews? The Catholic church is certainly made up by more than just Jewish people.

And as far as what Christ said about Peter's confession.


"Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and it will prevail until the End of Time, even against the very gates of Hell."


Do you /honestly/ believe Christ was saying that He was giving a MAN the power to prevail against hell on his OWN? That would totally throw the idea of salvation through Christ alone out the window. If a man had authority over hell, then Christ is not needed. He would have died in vain.

Show me a man with the power of God and I'll show you Christ. Show me a man who claims to have the power of God without Christ, and I'll show you a liar.

God bless,
Van
 
Dear Vanaze,

You cannot build a Church on a 'confession'. The Church, as an Institution within Society will necessarily require the leadership of men.

This is Earth. God once defined Earth for us by casting Adam and Eve down upon it so that they would no longer be in the Presence of God. This is not Heaven.

Now, The Catholic Church believes that The Church as 3 divisions -- the Church Triumphant comprised of the Angels, Saints and Souls already in Heaven; The Church Militant are those Catholics still alive on Earth; and the Church in Purgatory, the poor bastards. Anyway, suffice it to say that Catholics do not mix up Heaven and Earth the way Protestants and Atheists like to do in order to set up their arguments.

Your argument that Christ was speaking of Peter's words and not of his person is incredible. No one speaks like that. You are expecting me to believe in a legalism.

Yes, The Church has decided that its Clergy should be celibate. This was after Peter. The rule was never meant to be retroactive. The Rule of celibacy has two justifications -- the clergy should be above carnality, and Bishops and Cardinals without sons will not be tempted to make their Seats hereditary, which is what they were trying to do while they were still allowed to be married and have children -- the New Bishops would be the Old Bishop's Son. This was bad for two reasons -- one noble and one mercenary. The noble reason was that the Bishop's seat should be open to Merit -- only the best man should get that job. The mercenary reason was that throughout Church History you could make qualified applicants for a Bishop's Seat bid for the job -- the highest bid would be especially Holy. Peter started such greed in the Church -- he once said that Paul could say whatever he liked as long as he paid his dues. So, anyway, Peter having had a wife certainly wouldn't have disqualified him from being the first Pope -- the rules weren't made yet.

Also, Peter not having much influence later on, is not much of an argument. We are talking 'first', not 'greatest'. Also, you can argue on Peter's influence. Peter died in Rome. Peter also supported Paul's taking the Church in the direction of the Gentiles. If Peter had supported the arguments of John and James (The Real Apostles of Christ), instead of supporting the Antichrist Paul, then today we would not have a Catholic Church, but a Universal Non-Ethnic Judaism that Acknowledges the Messiah Jesus Christ. It was the worst mistake that could have ever been made, but the First Pope made it, and no one can argue with how influential it was.
 
well since in Acts the Apostles ask about the Kingdom of God and Jesus tells them that they have not understood what they have been taught for three years, shows in your thinking Leo. The Kingdom of God is not an earthly place, not an earthly ruler or anything, set your mind and hearts on things above.
 
Then he could not be called a pope if the position of "pope" didn't ACTUALLY EXIST. That's like saying, "Oh, Christopher Columbus was our first president because he was..uhm...uh..CLOSEST TO AMERICA FIRST!"

If the Catholic Church didn't really exist yet, then it's doctrine and dogmas and beliefs wouldn't have been set in stone yet. Either way you go with this, Leo, it's a losing battle. There is NO POSSIBLY WAY Peter could or would have been the first pope.

I have another question or two for you, Leo.

What do you believe about the forgiveness of sins? And who do you think originated this system of forgiveness and why?

What purpose do priests have on earth?

What is the pope's actual power here on this earth, according to your catholic faith?

Van
 
And anyways, who says you can't build an institution on an action?

The church is built on forgiveness, or at least SHOULD be.

America was built on actions, not a man. Sure, good ole' Washington was our first, but certain not built on JUST him.

Van
 
Yes, I know that story. That was my point. He was the first OFFICIATED president. Who was that guy's name before him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top