Was Peter Pope?

I’m trying to defend the Catholic faith position as being able to trace it’s roots back to St. Peter and I need help in countering the following …

The biblical description of the apostle Peter, as compared to that of the Roman pontiff, is like contrasting daylight with darkness. Consider the following factors:

[list=1]
*]The Roman Church considers the state of celibacy to be a holier status than that of matrimony, hence, the pope cannot be married. Clearly, though, Peter was a married man.

Matthew records an instance where the Lord healed the apostle’s mother-in-law (8:14). And in a defense of his apostleship, Paul once said that he had as much right to have a wife as Cephas (Peter) did (1 Cor. 9:5).

Additionally, Peter was an “elder” (1 Pet. 5:1), which means that he was also a husband (1 Tim. 3:2).

*]A survey of the news coverage of the pope’s activities revealed how very desirous he is of human adulation. People bow before him, he extends his hand for kisses, etc.

By way of vivid contrast, when the centurion, Cornelius, fell at Peter’s feet to worship, the apostle rebuked him thusly: “Stand up; I myself also am a man” (Acts 10:26). Not only was Peter not given to inordinate adoration, when he sinned by hypocritically refusing to fellowship Gentiles, he was openly rebuked to his face by Paul (Gal. 2:11ff).

*]There is a great deal of information about the travels of Peter as his apostolic activity took him from place to place. And yet, there is not one line in the New Testament which suggests that he was ever in the city of Rome, much less exercising the authority of the church in that community.

Consider this: when Paul penned his epistle to the saints in the city of Rome (c. A.D. 56 – perhaps more than a score of years after the church was established there), though he sent personal greetings to, and mentioned, more than twenty people (Rom. 16), he never once referred to the “Holy Father,” who was supposedly occupying the papal chair in that city. A strange circumstance indeed – if the claims of Catholicism are true.

Moreover, towards the end of his ministry, Paul spent two years (under house arrest) in Rome. How odd that the divine record (Acts 28) makes no mention of any association with the “pope.” This is especially significant in light of the fact that inspiration mentions a brief, fifteen-day trip that Paul made to Jerusalem during which time he saw Peter (Gal. 1:18). And yet, two years in the same city with the “pontiff” – and not a word about it!

*]About twenty years after the establishment of the church, a controversy arose regarding circumcision. Would Gentiles be obligated to receive this ordinance in conjunction with their acceptance of Christianity? A council was convened in Jerusalem to discuss the matter. Had Peter been pope, surely he would have presided over this affair; but he did not. James was the leading figure; Peter was merely a testifying witness (Acts 15).

[/list]

There is simply no evidence at all that Peter was ever recognized as a pope. As a matter of fact, the term “pope” is not even in the New Testament!

freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=272481&postcount=132 (anyone who wants to join in the discussion themselves, is more than welcomed)

If Peter was never in Rome, then why is he buried under Vatican hill where the historical ttradition of the church has said he was for 2,000 years. The body was found during some renovations during WWII.

  1. The Roman Church considers the state of celibacy to be a holier status than that of matrimony

, hence, the pope cannot be married. Clearly, though, Peter was a married man.This is complete bunk and totally untrue. See this thread for info.
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=43272

  1. A survey of the news coverage of the pope’s activities revealed how very desirous he is of human adulation. People bow before him, he extends his hand for kisses, etc.
  By way of vivid contrast, when the centurion, Cornelius, fell at Peter’s feet to worship, the apostle rebuked him thusly: “Stand up; I myself also am a man” (Acts 10:26). Not only was Peter not given to inordinate adoration, when he sinned by hypocritically refusing to fellowship Gentiles, he was openly rebuked to his face by Paul (Gal. 2:11ff).

And this means exactly what? Not much… The truth is that Peter was stopping them from worshipping him and no one worships the Pope.

  1. There is a great deal of information about the travels of Peter as his apostolic activity took him from place to place. And yet, there is not one line in the New Testament which suggests that he was ever in the city of Rome, much less exercising the authority of the church in that community.

See my statement above.

  1. About twenty years after the establishment of the church, a controversy arose regarding circumcision. Would Gentiles be obligated to receive this ordinance in conjunction with their acceptance of Christianity? A council was convened in Jerusalem to discuss the matter. Had Peter been pope, surely he would have presided over this affair; but he did not. James was the leading figure; Peter was merely a testifying witness (Acts 15).

Then why did the crowd become silent when Peter spoke? He stated the position of the council and made the decree and all James did was reiterate it.

There is simply no evidence at all that Peter was ever recognized as a pope. As a matter of fact, the term “pope” is not even in the New Testament

So? Neither iis “incarnation” trinity" or "purgatiory and yet they are all implicitly taught in the NT.
Pax tecum,

Yawn. Why are you mounting this defense? These outworn claims are all answered in a hundred places, starting with the tracts on the CA home page. Pray tell how you found your way into this tiresome interchange?

Don’t like to see any false statements about the Catholic faith go unanswered because someone who doesn’t know better will walk away with the wrong impression of the Catholic faith. If it is at least challenged, it will place doubts in the minds of others with regards to these false statements.

By the way, can you provide the URLs to these hundreds of tracts which address this debate? I’d appreciate it.

Here’s your links to te library tracts SK. Go get 'em buddy! :thumbsup:
PM or e-mail me if ya need more help

The Roman Church considers the state of celibacy to be a holier status than that of matrimony, hence, the pope cannot be married. Clearly, though, Peter was a married man

Me: The Holy Roman Church has never considered the state of celibacy to be holier than that of matrimony, this is plainly not true, I refer to Church Militants post on that matter. As for Peter being a married man, we know Peter was married, yes. But what we don’t know is what happened to his wife? Clearly scripture doesn’t speak of her. We have from extra biblical sources the writings that say his wife died. Peter never remarried.

A survey of the news coverage of the pope’s activities revealed how very desirous he is of human adulation. People bow before him, he extends his hand for kisses, etc.

By way of vivid contrast, when the centurion, Cornelius, fell at Peter’s feet to worship, the apostle rebuked him thusly: “Stand up; I myself also am a man” (Acts 10:26). Not only was Peter not given to inordinate adoration, when he sinned by hypocritically refusing to fellowship Gentiles, he was openly rebuked to his face by Paul (Gal. 2:11ff).

Me: How can one tell what the Pope desires or does not desire from a piece of film? To say this is to say one can read minds, or one has the mind of God. This is clearly not allowed for those calling themselves Christian. As far as Paul rebuking Peter? What has this to do with the pope?

There is a great deal of information about the travels of Peter as his apostolic activity took him from place to place. And yet, there is not one line in the New Testament which suggests that he was ever in the city of Rome, much less exercising the authority of the church in that community.

Me: This is untrue, as we have the writings of Peter in the NT which say he is writing from Babylon, the code word for Rome in Christ’s time. Also, we have the writings of the Fathers, which clearly state that Peter established the Church in Rome, and died there.

About twenty years after the establishment of the church, a controversy arose regarding circumcision. Would Gentiles be obligated to receive this ordinance in conjunction with their acceptance of Christianity? A council was convened in Jerusalem to discuss the matter. Had Peter been pope, surely he would have presided over this affair; but he did not. James was the leading figure; Peter was merely a testifying witness (Acts 15).

Me: Once again, this was explained by Church Militant, but it’s very clear from what happens at the council that Peter was the Apostle who made the declaration, not James. James simply agreed after the declaration was made.

There is simply no evidence at all that Peter was ever recognized as a pope. As a matter of fact, the term “pope” is not even in the New Testament

Me: There is more than enough evidence that Peter was given preference by Christ himself, over and over and over again. He is called FIRST of the Apostles in the scriptures. Just because the word Pope isn’t used doesn’t mean anything. It only means Papa. This doesn’t denote a thing. Trinity isn’t in the Bible, nor is ‘altar call’, nor is McDonalds, nor is Christmas, nor is AD, nor is BC, etc…etc…etc…this is an attempt at an argument which I would define as ‘red herring’ argument, and not a good one at that.

God bless,

Gracie :slight_smile:

You must remember the Papacy was a DEVELOPMENT. When Peter was chief of the apostles and bishop of Rome, he was a simple, humble man. He was not called Pope Peter, was not decked out in silken robes and a crown inlaid with gold and jewels.

                             But he STILL was the bishop of Rome and the one who Christ gave the keys of the kingdom. Sure Peter was married. Celibacy was not a mandatory obligation in the Catholic church at that time in seeking the office of a priest or a bishop for that matter.

                              As the centuries passed, the Papacy brought in all this pomp and rich attire. A great deal of wealth was accumulated in Rome. A lot were greedy and corrupt. Some Popes taxed the common people grievously.The Catholic church readily admits we indeed had some really bad Popes . So the future Popes of Rome after them, inherited all that their predecessors obtained. But remember one cannot judge a Pope because of what he wears, but rather his love of Christ and serving the people. That is the main thing one needs to consider.

                               As for bowing down before a Pope, This is a symbol of respect and not worship. If you and I were to go to England and seek the audience of the Queen, we would have to bow before her as a sign of respect of who she is and her office. This is all that this bowing is all about.

                                The reason why James spoke for the church in Jerusalem was because he was the BISHOP of the Jerusalem church. Peter respected that. You are implying something that is simply not there.

Rats! Left out the links! Here ya go! catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

St. Augustine wrote:

“Of this Church, Peter, the Apostle, on account of the Primacy of his Apostleship, bore a character which represented the whole Church. For as to what personally regards him, he was by nature but one man, by grace one Christian, by a more abundant grace, one, and that the First Apostle. But when there was said to him, ‘I will give unto him the keys,’ He signified the whole Church, which, in this world is, by divers trials, as it were, by rains, rivers, and tempests, agitated, but falls not, because it was built upon a Rock, whence Peter derived his name. For a rock is not derived from Peter, but Peter from a Rock, as Christ is not derived from Christian, but Christian from Christ. For therefore does the Lord say, ‘Upon this rock I will build my church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Upon this Rock, therefore, which thou has confessed, I will build my Church. For Christ was the Rock; upon which Foundation, even Peter himself was built. ‘For other foundation can no man lay but that is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ The Church therefore which is founded on Christ, received in Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven from Him, that is, the power of binding and loosing sins.” (T.iii.Tract.Cxxiv.in Joan.n, co.599)

St. Augustine also wrote, "Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom. This is the rock which the gates of hell do not prevail." (Psalmus contr. Partem Donati, str. 18)

In the same vein, St. Augustine wrote:

“For, if the order of succession of bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter, to whom as representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my church and gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”" (Letters, Volume I [1-82])

And ,“If the order of bishops succeeding to each other is to be considered, how much more securely, and really beneficially, do we reckon from Peter himself, to whom, bearing Figure of the Church, the Lord say, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’.” (T.ii.E.liii.Generos col. 91)

St. Augustine further wrote:

“The Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should… With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me… No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” ( Cont. Epist. Manich. Fund. n. 5 p.269)

Finally, **“Peter was made the pastor of the Church, as Moses was made the ruler of the Jewish people.” ** (Cont. Faustum, lib.xxii. c 70)

Pope is an English term. In many other countries, papa is used and it is more grammatically accurate.

Pope Etymology: Middle English, from Old English *pApa, *from Late Latin *papa, *from Greek *pappas, papas, *title of bishops, literally, papa

[size=2]http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pope


Peter was the first Vicar of Christ. Vicar of Christ = Prime Minister/Steward of Christ the King, given authority to rule in the place of Christ until the King’s return - the Second Coming. New Testament proves this with Peter being given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (office of Steward) and the authority to bind and loose (religious authority).
Peter was the first Universal Shepherd. The New Testament proves this too - Peter was told by Christ three times to feed/tend his sheep and lambs.

Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. History and archeology proves the title and position. [/size]

Please read this catholicmind.com/articles/celibacy.htm

Epiphanius had alot to say about celibacy, the marriage of Peter etc.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.