History of the Papacy

Benny Hicks · 04-04-2005, 01:57 PM

I was considering starting the in the theology forum, but I figured it belonged more in this forum. I've been thinking about the RC ecclesiology and evidences that they put forth for the existence of the papacy, and I was wondering who they consider to be the first pope and when was he given authority? I don't know very much in the way of early church history, and I'm curious when the position of "papacy" was established.

Ben

Wolvrin704 · 04-04-2005, 07:39 PM

They consider Peter to be the first Pope based on Matthew 16:18

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the Gates of Hades will not overcome it." (NIV)

Personally I believe Jesus was speaking more of himself than Peter. After all the church was built on faith in Christ. But I also think he may have referred to Peter becoming one of the foremost leaders of the early church.

Benny Hicks · 04-04-2005, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolvrin704

They consider Peter to be the first Pope based on Matthew 16:18

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the Gates of Hades will not overcome it." (NIV)

Right, I realize that, but who was the second pope, and when did he take up his position?

Ben

Wolvrin704 · 04-05-2005, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny Hicks

Right, I realize that, but who was the second pope, and when did he take up his position?

Ben

Sorry, you said first Pope, thats why I said Peter.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, St Linus was the 2nd Pope. His dates as Pope are listed as AD 64 or 67 to 76 or 79. Paul mentions him in 2 Timothy 4:21, he is amongst several people mentioned who sent greetings to Timothy. He was elected to take Peter's place once Peter was executed.

IMO, at this time there was no "Catholic" church or "Pope" as such. Merely a growing and struggling Christian church. All were of the same church and there was no large overbearing hierarchy over it.

Jeffrey · 04-05-2005, 04:09 PM

In Galatians 2 Paul clearly outlines that he and Peter met, and it was decided Paul was to take the Gospel out of Israel's borders and share it with the uncircumcised. Peter was to share the Gospel with the Jews, the circumcised. So why would Peter have moved to Rome when Scripture clearly shows he and Paul setting roles that would have left Peter situated in Israel?

Lightknight · 04-29-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolvrin704

They consider Peter to be the first Pope based on Matthew 16:18

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the Gates of Hades will not overcome it." (NIV)

Personally I believe Jesus was speaking more of himself than Peter. After all the church was built on faith in Christ. But I also think he may have referred to Peter becoming one of the foremost leaders of the early church.

This is actually a total abuse of the translation from greek. "this rock" is not Peter. He is calling Peter a rock or stone whereas the rock he is refering to is a much larger one. Petros is the word for peter. petra is the word for rock. I cannot see those two things meaning the same thing considering the difference of terms.