Was Peter the First Pope?:
|
Before we answer this historical question, students of the Bible and Church history, should be encouraged to ask, why would certain "ecclesiastical parties" want everyone to give an affirmative yes to this question? Because if this can be substantiated and unequivocally be found in Scripture, then it might give the Pope of Rome his dictatorial and tyrannical authority, which he has enjoyed for many centuries, even though it is very difficult to find early Christians even discussing the "primacy of Peter," let alone an alleged unbroken Apostolic chain to the incumbent Pope of the day.
Yet amazingly, Pope Gregory the Great (590-604AD) rejected outright the title of "Pope," but his successor, Pope Boniface II, cherished it (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. II, pg. 660.)Pope Damasus (366-384AD) was the first to call himself Pope (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. IV, pg. 614.) The same Encyclopaedia makes the non-biblical claim that the Pope is "lord of Heaven, Earth and Hell" (Vol. VI, pg. 48.) Rome also adheres to a strange Eastern religious view, which seems to border on the lines of reincarnation, for it states that Peter's spirit somehow speaks through living Popes, and it was Pope Leo I (449AD) who first introduced this view into the Catholic Church (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, pg. 744.) Holy Scripture If there's no other verse a Catholic can cite of the top of their head, it will always be Matthew's Gospel, chapter 16, and here it is from the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [petros]; and upon this rock [petra] I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Rome believes that there are Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts for the New Testament. However, if this is true, then they are as elusive as Iraq's weapon of mass destruction, for no Scholar religious or secular has ever found one fragment.Some may also be interested to learn that the meaning of the Aramaic word for Peter (Cephas) is sand. Not the best foundation to build upon (Matt. 7:26, 27.) Now on the surface it all appears rather simple. The Lord makes Peter the Church on which He will build on. But when one reads the whole Bible, problems soon occur. First, the Greek word for Peter is petros (small stone.) Second the Greek word for rock is petra (large stone.) Please also note that in John 1:42, Jesus calls Peter "a" stone. Not "the" stone.The term "the" stone is given to Jesus Christ alone by PETER himself in Acts 4:11. And not only does Peter twice in the NT call Jesus "the" stone or "rock", but Martha, Lazarus' sister, practically echoes the same words of Peter from Matt. 16, in John 11:27: "Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world." So both Peter and Martha affirm that Jesus is the Rock. So it would appear that a careful play on words has just taken place. Jesus is not making Peter the Church/Rock, but rather He is the Rock Himself, with Peter being a small stone - one of many. We also learn that Jesus has to be the Rock, when we read Matt. 7:24;1 Pet. 2:4-9.) The Apostle John, who outlived all the apostles, never mentions Pope Peter's death, burial and succession. Church "fathers" such as Irenaeus, Polycarp, Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Hilary and Ambrose, never acknowledged or taught that Peter was the first Pope (Kerr, pgs. 48, 49.) James and John were given special places of position with Jesus in the future Kingdom, yet Peter wasn't consulted once nor did Jesus refer them to him. We also read in John's Gospel, how certain Greeks went to Philip to have him introduce them to Jesus. Philip then went to Andrew (not Peter) to speak with Jesus. And at the end of this Gospel, Peter is rebuked by Jesus again, but this time for asking what John's future fate would be. If anybody is to be considered as "Papal" material, it would not be Peter (a man who tried to kill Malchus, deny Jesus three times and preach a false gospel in Gal. 2) but Paul the Apostle. Yet even he was more modest and humble then most modern day preachers are, whether Protestant or Catholic. Quotes from the "Fathers" and others "But if you think that the whole Church was built by God upon Peter alone, what would you say about John, the son of thunder, or each of the apostles? Or shall we venture to say that the gates of hell shall not prevent against Peter but shall prevent against the other apostles and those that are perfect? Are not the words in question 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' and 'upon this rock I will build my Church' said in the case of all and each of them?" - Origen, Com. in Matt., xvi, 18 (Migne), pg. 13:1000. "Certainly the rest of the apostles were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship of dignity and power" - Cyprian, De Unitate, 4. "But you say that the Church is founded upon Peter although the same thing is done in another place upon all the apostles, and all receive the kingdom of heaven, and the solidity of the Church is established equally upon all, nevertheless among the twelve one is therefore chosen that by the appointment of a head an occasion of dissension may be taken away"- Jerome, Adv. Jovianum, 1:26 (Migne) P.L. 23:258. |
Articles:
Peter's Primacy Simon Peter or Simon Magus? Upon this Rock! The Biblical Peter 50 Reasons Peter was not a Pope Upon this Rock EXPLAINED! Peter as head of the church Was Peter the Supreme Apostle? Early church beliefs on Peter the Rock Peter versus the Popes The Rock of Matthew Pope Peter Peter's grave found in Jerusalem Jesus, Peter and the Keys Is Peter the Rock? Constantine first Pope Papacy and the Rock Bishop Strossmayer's Letter Peter was NOT the Rock (V) Peter was NOT in Rome Convincing evidence of Pope Peter? Peter's own teachings Peter the first Bishop? Peter was NO pope Upon this Rock Books: Simon Peter or Simon Magus Videos: |
"This is, upon the rock of the confession." Paul was equal in honour to Peter -Chrysostom, Hom. Liv. in Matt. xvi. 2.
"Calling, I suppose, nothing else the rock, in allusion to his name, but the immovable and firm faith of the disciple on which the Church of Christ is founded and established" - Cyril of Alexandria, De SS. Trinitate, dial. iv P.G. 75:856.
"Upon this rock of the confession is the building up of the Church.....This faith is the foundation of the Church"- St. Hilary, De Trinitate vi, 36. P.L. 10:186-7.
"Faith in then the foundation of the Church, for not the human person of St. Peter but of faith is it said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" - St. Ambrose, De Incarn., v. 34, P.L. 16:827.
"To all the apostles after His resurrection He gives equal power and says, 'As the Father sent Me so I send you.'" - Cyprian, De Unitate, 4.)
Cyril would also say, much to the horror of today's Catholic apologists:
"Peter and James]: "Were of equal rank with each other as apostles" (Ad. Nest, pg. 77:112.)
"Peter & Paul were]: "The presidents of the Churches" (Catech. vi, 15, pg. 33:561.)
Chrysostom echoes Cyril and would give Paul the much-deserved credit that today's Catholic Church often denies him:
[Paul was] "The teacher of the word, the planter of the Church. If therefore he receives a greater crown than the apostles and be greater then they, it is manifest that he shall enjoy the highest honour and pre-eminence" (Hom. viii, pg. 48:772.)
"Where Paul was, there also was Christ. He is the light of the Church, the foundation of the faith, the pillar and ground of the truth" (Hom i in Rom. xvi, pg. 51:191.)
[Paul was]: "The apostle of the world" (Hom. xxi in Ep. I ad Cor, pg. 61:171.)
[Paul]: "He had the care not of one household but also of cities and of peoples and of nations and of the whole world" (Hom. xxv in Ep. Ii ad Cor, pg. 61: 571.)
[Paul was]: "The chief and leader of the choir of the saints" (Hom. xxxii in Rom. xvi, pg. 60:678.)
Augustine would also add the following:
"When apostle is said, if it be not expressed what apostle, none is understood save Paul" (Contra duas Ep. Pelag., iii, 3. P. L. 44:589.)
Then we have two Jesuits with their view on this. First, Juan Maldonatus from the sixteenth century, said the following about the rock:
"There are among ancient authors some who interpret 'on this rock', that 'on this rock' or 'on this confession of faith in which thou hast called Me the Son of the living God', as Hilary and Gregory Nyseen, and Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. St. Augustine, going still further away from the true sense, interprets 'on this rock' that is 'on myself Christ, because Christ was the rock.'" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. ix, pg. 567.)
Now we turn to John McKenzie, SJ:
"The position of Peter in the apostolic group was one of pre-eminence; this is a commonplace in Catholic theology, and it has within recent years been set forth very clearly by the Protestant scholar, Oscar Cullmann. It is also beyond dispute that to call Peter the "Pope" of the apostolic college is to imply a position of which the New Testament knows nothing. Here again the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of Paul are our best witnesses; in these Peter appears as a leader, but not endowed with supreme jurisdiction. We cannot define the position of Peter exactly in any of the terms which we use; and the New Testament has left his position undefined in its own language. The thesis of the primacy is weakened if one attempts to find in Peter the jurisdiction which has long been exercised by the Roman Pontiff for some 1700 years. This is a long time, and it takes one back very near to the apostolic Church; but Peter lacks that position in the New Testament which he ought to have if he or anyone else thought of him as Pope" (The Power and the Wisdom: An Interpretation of the New Testament, 1965, pgs. 179, 80.)
And we also have two interesting statements, from two Popes. The first beingPope Gregory I:
Paul] "Obtained the principate OF THE WHOLE CHURCH" (In 1 Reg., lib. iv, cv. 28. P. L. 79: 303.)
"Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull Unam Sanctum, cites John xxi. 17 as authorisingHIS SUPREMACY NOT ONLY OVER THE CHURCH BUT OVER KINGS"(Kerr, pg. 55.)
And to show that the fathers were far from united on Peter's supremacy we discover, for example, that Irenaeus taught that Linus was in fact the first bishop of Rome.
Irenaeus' view was the most popular one and subsequently was ratified by the apostolic constitution in 270AD (De Rosa.)
Yet Chrysostom believed:
[That John] "Is the pillar of the churches throughout the world, who hath the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Hom. i in Joan, pg. 59:480). [John & Peter received]: The charge of the world" (Hom. i in Joan, pg. 59:25.)
So for an overview of how the "fathers" universally understood this doctrine to be, please see the following breakdown, taken from Bishop Kerr:
"From this it follows either that no argument at all, or a feeble one, can be drawn in proof of the primacy of Peter from the words on this rock will I build my church. If we ought to follow the greater number of the fathers on this question then certainly it is to be held that we should understand by the rock the faith professed by Peter and not Peter professing the faith" (pg. 48.)
If only more bishops in Rome were as honest as this, how different their church and the world would be!
The title and fable that Peter was the first pope, with all its lavish sacraments and power, has slowly and gradually been woven into Vatican history over the centuries.
I would also refer the reader to a verse that most Catholic apologists miss, when trying to propagate their false notion that Peter was in Rome with Paul:
"And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, NOT WHERE CHRIST WAS NAMED, lest I should build on ANOTHER MAN'S FOUNDATION" (Rom. 15:20.)
It is quite clear from the above Scripture that Paul would not and did not visit and lay a foundation to a new or existing church, if an apostle or evangelist had already been there.
I would also point the reader to the 1st Peter 5:13, written around 66AD, the year Peter died:
"The church that is at BABYLON, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."
(The Catholic Church likes to say that Babylon is the code name for Rome. Yet when Bible believers point out to them Babylon is listed again in Rev. 17 - the whore of Rome - they quickly dismiss this by claiming that this is ancient Rome. However, that won't do - John the apostle who had travelled far with the Gospel, when shown this beast by the angel in Revelation 17:6, looked at it with "great admiration." Why would he have admired it, if he had lived under Roman occupation ALL OF HIS LIFE?)
So the reader is presented with three options:
1. Peter died in Jerusalem?
2. He died in Babylon?
3. Or he went to Rome and died there? This of course being the most unlikely and difficult to prove, for Scripture is silent on this.
One must also appreciate that from the third to the fifth tenth century, all Catholic bishops were addressed as pope or papa.
"It [the title pope] was not universally recognised in the West as a Roman title until the eleventh century" (Noel, pg. 23.)
Even today, Italians still call the Pope, "papa."
Please also note that the following "fathers" such as Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine, never acknowledged that the Keys the Lord gave Peter in Matt. 16:19 would be successive.
The early Church understood this commission to be solely for Peter alone; and subsequently no transfer of power or authority was ever practised in the early church. However, when taking a broader look at Scripture, one should understand that all the disciples, and especially the apostle Paul, were also given the Keys/authority to present the Kingdom of God to a lost world.
And this commission has been given to all believers, vicariously; for all believers, according to the apostles Peter and John are royal priests (1 Pet. 2 9; Rev. 1:6.) It must also be stated that all the Church Councils from Nicaea (4th century) to Constance (15th century) affirmed that Christ and Christ ALONE was the Foundation and the Rock to which the Church rests. So to recap whom the Rock is: the Foundation/Church is Christ, (Acts 4:11,12) and He is also the Rock that Paul taught (1 Cor. 3:11; 10:4) and Peter later affirmed this Biblical doctrine himself (1 Pet. 2:6, 7.)
And to finally nail this down, we offer one last view: David trusted in the Lord God his ROCK (Ps. 18:2.) Christ is the express image of God (Heb. 1:3.) There is only one GOD (Deut. 6:4.) Jesus affirms this (Mark 12: 29.) Christ states unequivocally that He is the Lord God Almighty (John 8:58.)
Therefore David trusted in one God - Jesus Christ. Peter trusted in one God - Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ's Church is His body, and only those that are in Him and trusting in Him, will ever be saved (John 1:12; Eph. 4:30.)
Just finally on this question about Peter, the reader may be interested to know that Simon Peter only wrote two epistles, which contained 8 chapters and 166 verses (some scholars even doubt he wrote the second Epistle.)
Yet Paul wrote 13 epistles, possibly 14 (that being Hebrews) and his chapters total 87, with 2,023 verses.
If Peter was the first pope, why is it that Paul dominates the New Testament with his writings? Why is it that James, the Lord's half brother, is mentioned before Peter in superiority in Galatians 2:9, and why is it that he sums up the Churches first meeting in Acts 15, not Peter?
May I leave the reader with these wise words from former Jesuit, George Tyrrell:
"Sooner of later the historical lie of the Papacy must be realised by every educated Roman" (Life, Vol II, pg. 383.)
James G. Battell, April 2004
"Calling, I suppose, nothing else the rock, in allusion to his name, but the immovable and firm faith of the disciple on which the Church of Christ is founded and established" - Cyril of Alexandria, De SS. Trinitate, dial. iv P.G. 75:856.
"Upon this rock of the confession is the building up of the Church.....This faith is the foundation of the Church"- St. Hilary, De Trinitate vi, 36. P.L. 10:186-7.
"Faith in then the foundation of the Church, for not the human person of St. Peter but of faith is it said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" - St. Ambrose, De Incarn., v. 34, P.L. 16:827.
"To all the apostles after His resurrection He gives equal power and says, 'As the Father sent Me so I send you.'" - Cyprian, De Unitate, 4.)
Cyril would also say, much to the horror of today's Catholic apologists:
"Peter and James]: "Were of equal rank with each other as apostles" (Ad. Nest, pg. 77:112.)
"Peter & Paul were]: "The presidents of the Churches" (Catech. vi, 15, pg. 33:561.)
Chrysostom echoes Cyril and would give Paul the much-deserved credit that today's Catholic Church often denies him:
[Paul was] "The teacher of the word, the planter of the Church. If therefore he receives a greater crown than the apostles and be greater then they, it is manifest that he shall enjoy the highest honour and pre-eminence" (Hom. viii, pg. 48:772.)
"Where Paul was, there also was Christ. He is the light of the Church, the foundation of the faith, the pillar and ground of the truth" (Hom i in Rom. xvi, pg. 51:191.)
[Paul was]: "The apostle of the world" (Hom. xxi in Ep. I ad Cor, pg. 61:171.)
[Paul]: "He had the care not of one household but also of cities and of peoples and of nations and of the whole world" (Hom. xxv in Ep. Ii ad Cor, pg. 61: 571.)
[Paul was]: "The chief and leader of the choir of the saints" (Hom. xxxii in Rom. xvi, pg. 60:678.)
Augustine would also add the following:
"When apostle is said, if it be not expressed what apostle, none is understood save Paul" (Contra duas Ep. Pelag., iii, 3. P. L. 44:589.)
Then we have two Jesuits with their view on this. First, Juan Maldonatus from the sixteenth century, said the following about the rock:
"There are among ancient authors some who interpret 'on this rock', that 'on this rock' or 'on this confession of faith in which thou hast called Me the Son of the living God', as Hilary and Gregory Nyseen, and Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. St. Augustine, going still further away from the true sense, interprets 'on this rock' that is 'on myself Christ, because Christ was the rock.'" (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. ix, pg. 567.)
Now we turn to John McKenzie, SJ:
"The position of Peter in the apostolic group was one of pre-eminence; this is a commonplace in Catholic theology, and it has within recent years been set forth very clearly by the Protestant scholar, Oscar Cullmann. It is also beyond dispute that to call Peter the "Pope" of the apostolic college is to imply a position of which the New Testament knows nothing. Here again the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of Paul are our best witnesses; in these Peter appears as a leader, but not endowed with supreme jurisdiction. We cannot define the position of Peter exactly in any of the terms which we use; and the New Testament has left his position undefined in its own language. The thesis of the primacy is weakened if one attempts to find in Peter the jurisdiction which has long been exercised by the Roman Pontiff for some 1700 years. This is a long time, and it takes one back very near to the apostolic Church; but Peter lacks that position in the New Testament which he ought to have if he or anyone else thought of him as Pope" (The Power and the Wisdom: An Interpretation of the New Testament, 1965, pgs. 179, 80.)
And we also have two interesting statements, from two Popes. The first beingPope Gregory I:
Paul] "Obtained the principate OF THE WHOLE CHURCH" (In 1 Reg., lib. iv, cv. 28. P. L. 79: 303.)
"Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull Unam Sanctum, cites John xxi. 17 as authorisingHIS SUPREMACY NOT ONLY OVER THE CHURCH BUT OVER KINGS"(Kerr, pg. 55.)
And to show that the fathers were far from united on Peter's supremacy we discover, for example, that Irenaeus taught that Linus was in fact the first bishop of Rome.
Irenaeus' view was the most popular one and subsequently was ratified by the apostolic constitution in 270AD (De Rosa.)
Yet Chrysostom believed:
[That John] "Is the pillar of the churches throughout the world, who hath the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Hom. i in Joan, pg. 59:480). [John & Peter received]: The charge of the world" (Hom. i in Joan, pg. 59:25.)
So for an overview of how the "fathers" universally understood this doctrine to be, please see the following breakdown, taken from Bishop Kerr:
- And eight for it [being] all the apostles.
"From this it follows either that no argument at all, or a feeble one, can be drawn in proof of the primacy of Peter from the words on this rock will I build my church. If we ought to follow the greater number of the fathers on this question then certainly it is to be held that we should understand by the rock the faith professed by Peter and not Peter professing the faith" (pg. 48.)
If only more bishops in Rome were as honest as this, how different their church and the world would be!
The title and fable that Peter was the first pope, with all its lavish sacraments and power, has slowly and gradually been woven into Vatican history over the centuries.
I would also refer the reader to a verse that most Catholic apologists miss, when trying to propagate their false notion that Peter was in Rome with Paul:
"And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, NOT WHERE CHRIST WAS NAMED, lest I should build on ANOTHER MAN'S FOUNDATION" (Rom. 15:20.)
It is quite clear from the above Scripture that Paul would not and did not visit and lay a foundation to a new or existing church, if an apostle or evangelist had already been there.
I would also point the reader to the 1st Peter 5:13, written around 66AD, the year Peter died:
"The church that is at BABYLON, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."
(The Catholic Church likes to say that Babylon is the code name for Rome. Yet when Bible believers point out to them Babylon is listed again in Rev. 17 - the whore of Rome - they quickly dismiss this by claiming that this is ancient Rome. However, that won't do - John the apostle who had travelled far with the Gospel, when shown this beast by the angel in Revelation 17:6, looked at it with "great admiration." Why would he have admired it, if he had lived under Roman occupation ALL OF HIS LIFE?)
So the reader is presented with three options:
1. Peter died in Jerusalem?
2. He died in Babylon?
3. Or he went to Rome and died there? This of course being the most unlikely and difficult to prove, for Scripture is silent on this.
One must also appreciate that from the third to the fifth tenth century, all Catholic bishops were addressed as pope or papa.
"It [the title pope] was not universally recognised in the West as a Roman title until the eleventh century" (Noel, pg. 23.)
Even today, Italians still call the Pope, "papa."
Please also note that the following "fathers" such as Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine, never acknowledged that the Keys the Lord gave Peter in Matt. 16:19 would be successive.
The early Church understood this commission to be solely for Peter alone; and subsequently no transfer of power or authority was ever practised in the early church. However, when taking a broader look at Scripture, one should understand that all the disciples, and especially the apostle Paul, were also given the Keys/authority to present the Kingdom of God to a lost world.
And this commission has been given to all believers, vicariously; for all believers, according to the apostles Peter and John are royal priests (1 Pet. 2 9; Rev. 1:6.) It must also be stated that all the Church Councils from Nicaea (4th century) to Constance (15th century) affirmed that Christ and Christ ALONE was the Foundation and the Rock to which the Church rests. So to recap whom the Rock is: the Foundation/Church is Christ, (Acts 4:11,12) and He is also the Rock that Paul taught (1 Cor. 3:11; 10:4) and Peter later affirmed this Biblical doctrine himself (1 Pet. 2:6, 7.)
And to finally nail this down, we offer one last view: David trusted in the Lord God his ROCK (Ps. 18:2.) Christ is the express image of God (Heb. 1:3.) There is only one GOD (Deut. 6:4.) Jesus affirms this (Mark 12: 29.) Christ states unequivocally that He is the Lord God Almighty (John 8:58.)
Therefore David trusted in one God - Jesus Christ. Peter trusted in one God - Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ's Church is His body, and only those that are in Him and trusting in Him, will ever be saved (John 1:12; Eph. 4:30.)
Just finally on this question about Peter, the reader may be interested to know that Simon Peter only wrote two epistles, which contained 8 chapters and 166 verses (some scholars even doubt he wrote the second Epistle.)
Yet Paul wrote 13 epistles, possibly 14 (that being Hebrews) and his chapters total 87, with 2,023 verses.
If Peter was the first pope, why is it that Paul dominates the New Testament with his writings? Why is it that James, the Lord's half brother, is mentioned before Peter in superiority in Galatians 2:9, and why is it that he sums up the Churches first meeting in Acts 15, not Peter?
May I leave the reader with these wise words from former Jesuit, George Tyrrell:
"Sooner of later the historical lie of the Papacy must be realised by every educated Roman" (Life, Vol II, pg. 383.)
James G. Battell, April 2004
