Was Saint Peter the first Pope ?

Peter was one of the Apostles and is now serving in Heaven. He never was a Pope nor is the title mentioned in connection with anyone in the Bible. Catholicisim is a man made religion with false teachings.

No absolutely NOT. The Popes were all Catholics.

St. Peter was a Jew who became a Christian after Jesus Christ came.

A lot of people think Jesus called Peter a Rock, but He didn't. Jesus Christ is the Rock (Deuteronomy 32:18).

When Jesus said, "on this rock I will build My church" Jesus was meaning the revelation Peter had received from God Almighty that Christ was the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16 - 18) Jesus was certainly NOT calling Peter the Rock. Jesus is the stumbling stone and Rock of offence (Romans 9:33).

Jesus Christ was the ROCK that followed the children of Israel in the wilderness the Old Testament when they were baptized into Moses through the Red Sea. Christ is the Rock (1 Corinthians 10:4)not Peter and neither is he or was he the first Pope.

<<Was Saint Peter the first Pope ?>>

Yes, If you trace the succession it leads right straight back to Peter. However, obviously that term developed much later so he nor this immediate successors were specifcally called "Pope" or "Papas"

But the ROLE of office existed from Peter on, so that's is why Peter is the first Pope, because that is the ROLE he exercised.

<<Have you examined their validity for yourself?>> YES

<<1) Does the Bible support the claim that Peter was the first pope? >>

Yes,

Consistent with a new calling and role.. Christ renames Simon to Peter (cephas) and at the same time gives him the keys to the kingdom. This was common practice back then when appointing an Ambassador or Representative (Vicar) Christ does not do this to all the Apostles, only Peter. He also makes some promises to Peter which he doesn't give to the others concerning building his church and the gates of hell, along with binding and loosing.

Prior to this, we always see Peter the first to speak up. We also see Christ keenly interested in Peter's opinion above all else. We see that preaching to the gentiles is not accepted until AFTER Peter speaks and agrees. The role he exercised clearly made him Pope. The bible only covers the very very beginning of the Christian faith. It was written between 60AD and perhaps as late as 100AD, though most agree not later then 92AD.

Therefore, obviously, we are not going to see every detail of the Christian faith contained within the bible. I am a Christian..yet I am not in the bible. Lourdes France is a holy place, yet it is not in the bible. So the term "Pope" is not, however it is clear that the role did exist and there continues to be a need for that role. We know from history that a successor TO Peter was chosen. We know that the Bishop of Rome always refers to Peter as the first Bishop of Rome.

<<(2) What does history teach about the origin of the succession of popes?>>

That the Bishop of Rome continued to be seen as the prominent position and settle doctrinal matters and call ecumenical councils.

<<(3) Do the conduct and teachings of the popes support their claim to be Peter’s successor?>>

Yes, with the occasional exception over nearly 2,000 years.

This seems to be a standard argument from non-Catholics. To use the conduct of imperfect humans to cast doubt on a promise from God. Notice that none of the bad Popes ever changed a doctrine of the faith.. which shows that the Holy Spirit is truly guiding the church. There were bad Popes.. yes, but that in no way casts doubt on the Office of the Pope no more then a corrupt politician invalidates the role of their political appointment.

For instance.. you wouldn't seriously call into question EVER President, going all the way back to the founding of the U.S. simply because the last several were bad or that every couple of years there have been corrupt Presidents.

Likewise, one would not 'throw the baby out with the bath water" simply because a few Popes within 2,000 years have been horrible.

IN FACT.. this very fact actually PROVES the promise by Christ to his church and strengthens in a way the faith of Catholics that the Holy Spirit is guiding their church.

God Bless

Yes

Yes

yes Matt 16:18-19, Jn21:17

History points back to peter as the first pope of Rome

No all the popes have lived up to the role of shepherd but not all the successors of George Washington have lived up to his standards and example

It is interesting to note that Peter was refered to as the apostle to the Jews and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles.

Paul wrote the Book to the Romans in 58 AD, not Peter. In fact Paul greeted 27 Christians at Rome but did not mention Peter when Peter had supposedly been there 16 years (42 to 67 AD per the RCC).

Paul wrote many other books from his prison cell in Rome (61-63 AD and then in 67 AD) but never mentioned Peter being there, visiting him or greeting him.

Also, Peter in his books did not refer to himself as the leader or head of the church.

Certainly in Matthew 16 Jesus is referring to the prophecy of Isaiah in Isaiah 22 and in doing so He is fulfilling the prophetic imagery prophesied by the prophet Isaiah. The prime minister referred to by Isaiah is a type for the appointment of St. Peter to be the leader, steward and authority over His family or household. It further emphasizes by Christ’s actions in His appointment that He, Jesus, having received the throne of David by virtue of His Father is asserting His claim to the throne of David and as the rightful successor as king of all of Judah and Israel. He fulfills this by asserting the legal precedent necessary to fulfill prophecy and appoints St. Peter as the steward over His kingdom. He is claiming by this action what He came to do which was to establish a new and enduring Covenant with His Kingdom. But was this Kingdom fully established at this time or was it just a stepping stone to the establishing of His Kingdom in His appointment of St. Peter in Matthew 16? Certainly, the time had not yet come for the Prime Minister, St. Peter, to exercise the power of the keys for Christ had not yet revealed His glory or made claim to His kingdom with the establishment of the New Covenant. This would not happen until Calvary where Jesus would from the cross drink of the cup of consummation from the hyssop branch and then utter the words, “it is finished” after which He gave up His Spirit and His glory was revealed. He would finish His redemptive work three days later when He raised from the dead. Only then was all prophecy fulfilled and the law satisfied. St. Peter was now endowed with the Authority of Christ to be the royal steward over Christ’s kingdom. So great was this authority that He had the authority to bind or loose on earth as well as in heaven and became the spiritual father of Christ’s family. The keys represent the supremacy of the power bestowed on St. Peter and he is fastened on a peg and carries the weight of maintaining the King’s (Christ’s) house. So great are the parallels between Eliakim and St. Peter that it is implausible to deny that Eliakim is a type for St. Peter. The new kingdom is not a kingdom of land and of a people but it is the establishment of a spiritual kingdom of God and not of men. Keeping with the typology the office of Eliakim was an enduring office and so too is the office that St. Peter to which he has been appointed. Only the prime minister holds the keys of supreme authority and not only the first among equals but the special and singular authority among the disciples and visible head of the Church.

Let us look directly at the parallels between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16.

The prime minister in David’s household had successors:

Isa 22:15, 1 Kings 4:6, & 18:3, 2 Kings 10:5, 15:5, 18:18

We see the full authority given to the prime minister:

Isa 22:22, Mat 16:19, Rev 3:7

Further teaching of the authority of the prime minister:

Mat 24:45, Luk 12:42, Gen 41:40, Gen 43:19

God bless!

In Christ

Fr. Joseph

2) The OT and NT make it abundantly clear that the Christ is the rock (2Sam 22:2-three, Ps 19:14) and groundwork (Acts 4:eleven-12, 1 Cor 3:11) as good as the top of the church (Eph 5:23). He is giving neither of those roles to Peter. 3) If Peter had been given papal authority as God’s consultant on the planet, then how come only 4 verses later Jesus mentioned “get behind me devil. You're a stumbling block to Me. You are not environment your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s”. If Christ had simply instituted Peter because the Rock of the Church to move the papal place of business, how could Peter be thoroughly within the fingers of devil the very next second? Four) the issues continue for Peter. In Matthew 26, Jesus is telling the disciples that he is going to be crucified and that they'll all fall away and be scattered. Jesus tells Peter that before the cock crows, he will deny Him thrice (Matt. 26:31-34). What is Peter’s response? He says that he's going to by no means fall away and that he'll certainly not deny Jesus—even supposing it means his own loss of life (Matt. 26:35). 5) When Christ is resurrected from the useless, is Peter the primary one to appreciate, take delivery of it and give an explanation for to the Church the value of what has occurred? When each Peter and John noticed the empty tomb, the Bible says that only John “noticed and believed” (John 20:3-eight). Even later when Peter had approved the truth of the resurrection, Jesus needed to ask him 3 times, “Do you're keen on Me?” again, we don't see Peter equipped of supremacy. In fact, “Peter used to be grieved” when the Lord requested him the 0.33 time “Do you love Me?” Peter knew this was somehow related to his denial of Christ thrice. Later when Peter asked Jesus concerning the Apostle John, Jesus’ response was to now not be concerned about John however to comply with Him. Again, we don’t see Peter in any sort of function of papal authority or management. Instead, Peter is once once more rebuked. 6) Why is it also that when the Apostle Paul certainly writes to the Roman Church, he does not even mention Peter? Peter is meant to have been in Rome around forty two-67 A.D. If the book of Romans used to be written in fifty seven A.D., which means Peter has already been in Rome for 15 years. Again, is it imaginable that the Apostle Paul would now not mention Peter or the quality place of job of papacy that he now occupies? That is not possible if certainly Peter is meant to occupy the role of the vicar of Christ as the head of the Church. In Romans 16 Paul mentions 27 people via identify—however he fails to mention Peter even once. 7) additional, in Galatians 2:eleven, we find another impossible challenge if Peter is the pope, “however when Cephas [Peter] got here to Antioch, I antagonistic him to his face, for the reason that he stood condemned.” In other phrases, we don't see Peter in the role of papal strength; we see him rebuked by using the Apostle Paul for compromising the very Gospel itself! 8) In 2 Timothy four, Paul is writing from Rome in sixty seven A.D. He says that the time of his dying is near (2 Tim. 4:6). Recollect that consistent with Catholic culture, Peter has already been in Rome for twenty-five years. However nothing that Paul does suggests Peter is even there. If Peter had been killed about 67 A.D., before Paul had written 2 Timothy, how would it's that Paul fails to say Peter’s death? Why does he mention everyday details and guidelines for members by identify however fail to say the demise of the primary pope who has dominated in Rome for twenty-five years (2Tim. Four:10-14, 19-21)? Paul goes on to assert that Demas, loving this gift world “has abandoned me” and that “best Luke is with me” and that, “At my first safety no person supported me, but all abandoned me; could it now not be counted in opposition to them” (2 Tim. 4:sixteen). 9) If Peter has been in Rome for twenty-five years, why did not Peter ever come to Paul’s safeguard? Is that this the recreation of papal authority and leadership? 10) eventually, if we seem at Peter’s possess writings, there may be no longer a single verse that substantiates the Roman Catholic claims to papacy. Peter writes as an equal man among all different believers. Peter describes himself as “an apostle” and “an elder”—however no longer a pope (1 Pet. 1:3; 5:1). Peter also says that all believers represent “a royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9); he not ever speaks of a distinctive priesthood who will mediate between God and the humans. Eleven) ultimately in 2 Peter, like Paul, he emphasizes that his dying is close (2 Pet. 1:14). If at any time Peter is going to appoint a papal successor, it have to be now. However all Peter does is inform his readers that they have got to be given the authority of the Holy Scripture as something “extra definite” than even eyewitness testimony (2 Pet. 1:14-21). Has Peter just declared that Scripture has superiority over way of life?

Peter was never a Pope and popes entered the frame much later.

Peter with other Apostles like James the Lord's brother established the early church and it was to be much later that Rome laid claim to Peter.

The word Pope means "Father" and Jesus expressly said that only God the Father should be called Abba (Father) so the claims of the Roman Catholic Church are false.

The Church of Jesus Christ does not need a Pope (a Father) it needs only Jesus as intercessor to mediate between the sinner and God the Father himself.

1) Jesus gave all spiritual authority to St. Peter when He gave him the "keys of the Kingdom," which are symbolic of leadership.

Matthew 16:18-19 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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

If Jesus had intended for spiritual leadership to die with the Apostles, He would never have bothered to give that authority to St. Peter.

And please spare us the "Jesus was referring to Himself" routine. He couldn't have given Himself what He already possessed, i.e., all spiritual authority. Otherwise, this is how the passage would read:

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter. . and I will give unto Myself the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever I shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever I shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus never spoke an idle word, and He wouldn't have had a nice little chit-chat with Peter to tell him something that he already knew.

2) Here is a list of all the Popes from St. Peter to Pope Benedict XVI:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

That pretty well covers the subject of history and the Papacy.

3) Most of them have been strong, capable men of God who have done an excellent job of guiding the Church through the most difficult of times. Yes, there have been a few clinkers among them, but that's true of all organizations from nowadays clear back to the first Neanderthal Neighborhood Watch.

So much for those objections. Anything else?

Though Peter/ Cephas[as a STONE/rock you can THROW] Was given the "keys to the kingdom";

Peter/Cephas NEVER gave them to ANY SUCCESSOR !

NOT ONE SINGLE VERSE in the "Bible" SHOWS him EVER doing that ! and I DARE ANY to find

ANY such BIBLICAL Verse.

The CHURCH/ ekklesia/ CONGREGATION ... that the Messiah was REALLY referring to build was to be built up of PEOPLE[Souls] and FAITH ; NOT REAL rock and mortar! he was speaking in METAPHORS .. of which he spoke in MANY TIMES !

The First "POPE OF ROME was PAGAN ; High Priest/ Pontifex Maximus And ROMAN EMPEROR Julius Caesar; the LAST PAGAN Pope was Emperor Gratian

"Because of the power of the office, the position was highly prized amongst the noble Roman families. Julius Caesar, for example, became pontifex in 73 BC and Pontifex Maximus in 63 BCE."

It was the Apostle Simon alone to whom Jesus Christ gave the title "Peter", meaning "Rock", and in the same sentence told him that He was to be the Rock upon whom Christ's Church would be built. To enable "Simon Peter" - "Simon the Rock" - to fulfill that unique ministry, Christ then endowed him with full authority, symbolized by "the keys to the Kingdom", and the charism of infallibility, promising him, "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven". Jesus knew that truth can exist only in unity, because truth cannot conflict with truth, and conflicting beliefs/teachings, as in denominational religion, therefore necessarily mean false beliefs/teachings. Jesus also knew that unity can exist only under genuine authority, which is why He selected Simon to exercise that authority. The doctrinal chaos of Protestantism, where there is no genuine authority, clearly demonstrates how correct Jesus was; and so does the fact that the ONE Church He founded remains ONE in belief, ONE in teaching, ONE in worship throughout the world after 2,000 years, according to His clearly stated will concerning His followers - "that they all may be ONE".