Was Peter the First Pope? . . .  

You should check out Michael Lofton's Reason & Theology channel. He made the point that, strictly speaking, calling Peter a "pope" is somewhat of an unjust demotion/downgrade. Peter was an apostle who could write/dictate inspired Scripture; no pope can do that. Certain key functions of the office of apostle were transferred to the papacy and episcopate. That would be a more precise way to speak about it.

Thanks for the great video guys. Would you consider doing a video on the case for an unbroken monoepiscopacy in tge Church of Rome and how important this is for the Catholic Church's claims. I know that there is an apparent 'consensus' among scholars saying the monoepiscopacy developed in Rome in the second century but many Catholic apologists like Trent Horn and Joe Heschmeyer push back on this. As a protestant considering the Catholic Church's claims I'd find this super helpful! Thanks :)

According to early church tradition, Peter and Paul taught together in Rome and founded Christianity there. Eusebius cites Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth as saying, "They taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time." Dionysius corresponded with Pope Soter (circa 170).

I hope these guys keep up their podcast.they really full a gap and do a good job.

Regarding the monepiscopate vs presbytery structure, I don't think we have to necessarily have to choose either, especially considering how the early Church used the terms overseer/elder/deacon more loosely. The Church today still continues to ordain auxiliary bishops who report to an archbishop in larger dioceses. In fact, Rome currently has 10 auxiliary bishops under Pope Francis, and the "Archpriest" of St. John Lateran (the cathedral of Rome) is actually an ordained bishop. Unless one isn't aware that the Church still has multiple bishops operating in single dioceses, the presbytery argument doesn't really hold much weight at all. Rome was, and still is, a gigantic city--it's actually not surprising that it would be all hands on deck in the establishment of the Roman Christian community.

Great video, and I’ve been enjoying your content and other videos! I have a question regarding St. Ignatius’s letter to the Romans. I notice you mentioned how some churches had a bishop, others had a council of presbyters. I’ve seen this knowledge of church structure used by other people such as Protestant scholars to show that the Roman Church never had a bishop descending from Peter, since Ignatius mentions other bishops in other letters but not the Bishop of Rome. There also is the claim that Ignatius was trying to promote the office of a bishop in the church. I think that this a huge stretch for an argument from silence. I notice you both believe in the Petrine and Pauline succession in the Roman church, however I wanted to know you thoughts on why a bishop isn’t mentioned in the letter to the Romans by Ignatius? Edit: I see a comment where you addressed some of the similar questions

Thanks guys amen 🙏🏽 🙌

Wonderful

This has come up several times, and it's the only problem I have with you guys' historical legwork. The series is a real blessing. I just can't understand what reasons there are not to identify James the Just (brother of Jesus) with James the Less (the Apostle, son of Alphaeus). Mary of Clopas is pretty clearly indicated to be the mother of James the Just in Scripture, and it's pretty well-established that Clopas and Alphaeus are the same name translated from Hebrew to Greek. Why the hesitation? Is there something I'm missing here? Brant Pitre covers this fairly well, and came up with the same conclusion that I did separately. Have you guys mentioned this in a later episode, or were you not aware of this nugget of information? How am I mistaken here? The only thing conflicting with that which comes to mind is the alleged authorship of the Protoevangelium of James, which was rejected by the Gelasian Decree, presumably as it appears to be a sort of Christian "midrash" type of work. I'd love to get your thoughts on this, because I've always considered it to be a fascinating topic, and I'm a huge fan of James the Just and his epistle.

Respect.

You guys should check out the Godward Podcast. The focus is on literature, but there are many overlapping themes with your videos.

If we are to attempt to find continuity of the Old Testament flowing into the New, do we not see that even in the time of the Levitical priesthood, a high priest or chief prophet among the Levites always served as a Primate for the faith? Correct me if Im wrong

You guys make me regret I never had a brother Love your videos

*Nope.* The first known use of the title is from the early third century and did not refer to the Bishop of Rome but to Greek Patriarch of the Church, Heraclas of Alexandria in a letter addressed to him by his successor Pope Dionysius of Alexandria The word “pope” and also the word “patriarch” (usually applied to bishops in Eastern Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) both derive from the ancient Greek word páppas, originally an affectionate term meaning “father.” The earliest record of the use of this title is in regard to the Patriarch (“Pope”) Heraclas of ... The earliest record of the use of the title of 'pope' was in regard to the by-then-deceased patriarch of Alexandria, Heraclas (232-248).

It is a Catholic architectural mandate that wherever there is an image of St. Peter, there is to be another of St. Paul, and vice-versa.

Can you debunk the statement many have that is: the forst pope wasnt simon peter but simon magus* they say he took even the form of peter ecc, watch some videos about it because its a hell of a thing to me.

Side note you brought up that Mark was the first Gospel written. Isn’t that based on a Q source which has never been verified? To me Matthew was the first Gospel Makes more sense written in the late 40’s or 50’s. It’s Jewish in nature and the first church the Apostles established was in Jerusalem. Perhaps Mark then took a copy of that with him to Rome and then used that to help compile the Gospel of Mark?

Can you talk about why the Church started declaring Peter as the first Pope and at what time in history did this happen? This became a big deal when the Protestant movement came about.

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by MY MOUTH the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe... Type and shadows to God choosing King David in 1 Chronicles 28.. On another note I know it sounds fun to claim that Paul withstood Peter to his face but he didn't, it was Cephas look at all translations of Galatians 2 why would Paul say Peter and then 3 sentences later switch his name to Cephas. He wouldn't he's talking about 1 on the 70 Cephas was another person Paul always called Peter Peter Saint Clement attests to this as well I know it doesn't seem like a huge deal but it is bc we now have people all over the internet attacking other Christians including authorities in the church and using Galatians 2:11 as some kind of proof text this actually would make a great topic for a video..

Peter was never a Roman Catholic. Peter was Jewish and one of the chosen 12-apostles by Jesus. Peter was martyred by the Pagan Romans... Peter was martyred as an apostle of Jesus Christ, not as a Roman Catholic pope...Was Jesus a Roman Chatholic? the answer is No...Then neither was Peter...

If we are to say that the Pope is the successor of Peter and Paul are we to say that Peter and Paul were co-popes. That's what it sounds like. Even after Peter died Paul wasn't wasn't the successor of Peter. Can you explain please

No! Scripture does not support the papacy or catholicism. Before you say he was a pope, you have to show he was a catholic. That is something that can't be verified through scripture either. There is no account of peter ever doing anything "catholic". No account of peter saying a mass, praying to Mary, etc etc. The papacy and catholicism are nowhere to be found in scripture.

Those who claim that Peter was the first pope state that Matthew 16:18 proves that Peter was given this title by Jesus himself. What does this verse say, “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.” These say that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus was going to build his church. However, the rest of scripture state otherwise. Jesus said that He was the rock in Matthew 21:42, when he said, “The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes”. To this, Peter himself agreed! Peter wrote in 1 Peter 2:6, “Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.” Who is the chief corner stone? Peter or Jesus? It is Jesus. Inspired by the same Holy Spirit as Matthew, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 3:11 “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” The scriptures teach that Jesus was and is the foundation of the church, not Peter. Who then was the “rock” in Matthew 21:42? It was Jesus himself. It was upon the rock of Peter’s confession upon which Jesus would build His church, not upon Peter himself. There are, however, other inconsistencies with the claim that Peter was the first pope. Peter, unlike the popes of our day, had a mother-in-law according to Matthew 8:14, Mark 1:30 and Luke 4:38. This meant that Peter (Cephas) was married. In 1 Corinthians 9:5, Paul calls our attention to this fact when he says, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” This is entirely inconsistent with what the Catholic Church requires in a “pope” today. The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “Virginity is consequently the special prerogative of the Christian priesthood.” By and large, one must come up through the ranks of Catholic priesthood in order to become the pope. This would require celibacy for the pope. Too bad Peter didn’t know this. Another inconsistency is that Peter didn’t allow anyone to bow down before him and worship him as those who fawn over the pope do today. In Acts 10:25,26 we have these words regarding Cornelius, “And when it came to pass that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter raised him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.” The word “worship” in this verse refers as much to a position as to an attitude. It means to bow the knee toward or kiss toward another. The action of Cornelius’ bowing down to Peter was understood as an action of worship. Unlike the popes of modern day who accept such worship, Peter refused it. He told this man to stand up because he, Peter, was also a man. Strange behavior indeed, from a pope! Why don’t the popes of today follow Peter’s example in this regard, if he TRULY was the first pope. Hypocrisy comes to mind as at least one of the reasons. Another reason is simply that Peter wasn’t the first pope. Perhaps the clincher is the situation in which Peter found himself at the church in Antioch. He had traveled there to visit and have fellowship with the brethren, but when his fellow Jews arrived, Peter stopped engaging in that fellowship and refused to eat with them. Paul called Peter down on this point. He states in Galatians 2:11 “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.” This is strange behavior toward someone who was the first pope. Didn’t Paul know about Peter’s elevated status? Didn’t Paul know that the pope is beyond reproach? Didn’t Paul know that the pope makes the doctrine of the church? Who among the Catholics today would so act toward the pope if he were found to be in sin? Not any of them would so act. Yet, Paul treats Peter not as if he were someone special, but as if he were merely a brother who needed correction. The fact of such matters is that Peter was never the first pope. Peter was not so elevated above the other apostles as to have a greater measure of authority than any of the others. Peter was a leader, of that there is no doubt. Peter was also a shepherd, but acknowledged that there were others who were on equal footing with him in this role (1 Peter 5:1). The Catholic Church would have us believe that Peter was the chief Shepherd of the whole church. They say, ” The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth” (The Pope). They also state regarding John 21:15-17, “here [Jesus] makes [Peter] the shepherd of God’s flock to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd.” But to Peter, there was but ONE Chief Shepherd and that was Jesus himself. He makes this abundantly clear in 1 Peter 5:4 where Peter says, “And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away.” Again, the Catholic Church would do well to listen to their “first pope.” Yet, sadly, they do not. The scriptures plainly teach that Peter held no such role of prominence for which the Catholic Church argues. They argue this not based upon the facts of the scriptures, but merely upon their own traditions. And the traditions of men never outweigh the word of God (Mark 7:13). In fact, traditions have no authority whatsoever when it comes to doctrinal matters (Mark 7:13). Only the scriptures can provide the man of God with everything that he needs for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16,17). Our plea is for unity, not based upon the traditions of men, but upon the authority of the word of God. If we take that as the standard, then we will avoid such folly as attempting to twist the scriptures into confirming Peter as the first pope.

HOMILIES ON ACTS JOHN CHRYSOSTOM Homili XXXIII '...Peter indeed spoke more strongly, BUT JAMES HERE MORE MILDLY: FOR THUS IT BEHOOVES ONE IN HIGH AUTHORITY, TO LEAVE WHAT IS UNPLEASANT FOR OTHERS TO SAY, WHILE HE HIMSELF APPEARS IN THE MILDER PART...' '...And upon this Peter well pleaded...' '...AND HE SAYS WELL, WITH AUTHORITY, THE MY SENTENCE IS. But that we write unto them that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication- (b) and yet they often insisted upon these points in discoursing to them - but, that he may seem also to honor the Law (he mentions), these also, speaking (however) not as from Moses but from the Apostles, and to make the commandments many, he has divided the one into two (saying), and from things strangled, and from blood...'

You don’t believe James was the actual bother of the Lord, please you know that James was related to the Lord, his brother was John.

St. James was the first Head of the Church, not St. Peter [who was never Bishop of Rome] PANARION BOOK II EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS Against the Nazoreans III.VII. But with the transfer of the royal throne the rank of king passed, in Christ, from the physical house of David and Israel to the church.13 The throne is established in God’s holy church forever, and has both the kingly and the high-priestly rank for two reasons. (8) It has the kingly rank from our Lord Jesus Christ, in two ways: because he is physically descended from King David, and because he is in fact a greater king from all eternity in virtue of his Godhead. But it has the priestly rank because Christ himself is high priest and the founder of the offi ce14 of the high priests (9) SINCE JAMES, WHO WAS CALLED THE LORD’S BROTHER AND WHO WAS HIS APOSTLE, WAS IMMEDIATELY15 MADE THE FIRST BISHOP.16 He was Joseph’s son by birth, but was ranked as the Lord’s brother because of their upbringing together

Also there weren't one, but three Sees of Peter according to St. Gregory the Great of Rome www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm To Eulogius, Bishop. Gregory to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria. 'Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. BUT I GLADLY ACCEPTED ALL THAT HAS BEEN SAID, IN THAT HE HAS SPOKEN TO ME ABOUT PETER'S CHAIR WHO OCCUPIES PETER'S CHAIR...' '...Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, WHICH IN THREE PLACES IS THE SEE OF ONE...' '...For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years...' '...SINCE THEN IT IS THE SEE OF ONE, AND ONE SEE, OVER WHICH BY DIVINE AUTHORITY THREE BISHOPS NOW PRESIDE, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself...' 1. The Bishop of Alexandria [Eulogius] sat on the See of Peter 2. The See of Peter was [historically] in three places = Antioch, Alexandria, Rome 3A. Rome became a Petrine See because Peter was martyred there 3B. Alexandria became a Petrine See because Peter sent Mark there 3C. Antioch was the Petrine See because Peter founded it and was Bishop of Antioch 4. Three Bishops [Antioch, Alexandria, Rome] presided over the See of Peter Don't tell me that St. Gregory the Great is 'spurious tradition' while you're the one making wild guesses about 'it seems Peter and Paul followed two distinct church government models'

Very easy answer, No. it’s not a theological question, it’s not a deep question. He held no primacy over the other Apostles. If you believe this, you have a false belief.

First Head of the Church was James, not Peter Also Peter was never Bishop of Rome. Linus was the first Bishop of Rome and Cletus was the second, while Peter was still alive in Rome. That's because Peter was never Bishop of Rome The Apostle Paul also never mentioned Peter in his Epistle to the Romans even though Peter had been many years in Rome. Paul wrote to the Romans, not Peter, because Rome was under his jurisdiction. Paul was the one ordaining Linus, his follower, to be the first Bishop of Rome

Nope NEVER A POPE he has a mother inlaw and wife Also it is said he never went to Rome and Peter always traveled and they rarely if ever stayed long in these cities.

Peter was the FIRST Head of the Church. The title word 'Pope' did not exist in Peter's lifetime.

PANARION BOOK VII EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS Against the Antidicomarians VII.V. '...His firstborn son was James, whose surname was Oblias, or “wall ,” 18 and who was also surnamed “The Just” and was a nazirite, or “holy man." HE WAS THE FIRST TO RECEIVE THE EPISCOPAL THRONE , 19 THE FIRST TO WHOM THE LORD ENTRUSTED HIS THRONE ON EARTH...' James was the first Bishop of the Universal Church and the first occupant of the Lord's Throne on earth You run counter to the testimony of an Universal Doctor and Holy Tradition