How is Peter the first pope?

Question

If you base your assumption that Peter was the first pope on Matthew 17:17, why does Jesus than call Peter 'Satan' and an offense to Him just a few verses down in Matthew 17:23? Second, where in the Bible does it say there will be papal succession?

Excuse me for the typo: Matthew 16, not 17.

Answer 1

The fact is, Peter was not the first Pope no matter what the Catholic religion tells you.

Hardly had the second century begun until certain people thought they saw the wisdom of setting one man over an entire congregation and designating that man as priest. All Christians are priests, for Peter plainly states that such compose a "royal priesthood" (I Peter 2:5, 9). But, as to the oversight of an entire congregation of people, let us see what the scriptures say. In I Timothy 5:17 we read, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine." The elders then are to rule in the church. We might add they rule, "Not as lords over God’s heritage, but as examples to the flock" (I Peter 5:3). What is the extent of their rule? In Acts 14:23, we learn that elders were ordained in every church. Thus we are caused to know that there is to be a plurality of elders in each individual congregation. Since the elders rule jointly in every local congregation, it is evident that no one man is to appropriate all such authority unto himself. Furthermore, you do not read in the New Testament of any man, or set of men, having more authority under heaven in the church of the living God than do the elders in the church. That means that, in the matter of organization, there can be nothing larger than the local congregation with the oversight under a plurality of elders.

The Origin Of Bishop, Arch-Bishop, Cardinal And Pope

More time passes, and the same people thought it prudent to bring many local congregations in a given district under one head and so the bishop was introduced. The name "bishop" is synonymous with elder in the Scriptures and, as for the office given to the one so designated by the Catholic Church, there is absolutely no grounds in the Bible. With the passing of additional time, it was thought to be a part of wisdom to bring all the districts in a state or province under one head and so the archbishop was introduced. Both name and office are unscriptural and anti-scriptural. Then in the course of time it was thought wise to bring all the states or provinces in a continent under one head, and so the cardinal was introduced. Both name and office are unscriptural and anti-scriptural. With the passing of further time in fact, in A.D. 606 old emperor Phocus, who was himself a murderer and an adulterer, appointed Boniface III as the first pope. Should anyone be inclined to call that in question, being mindful as I am that Romanism proposes a certain lineage from the time of Peter, I think this one argument is enough to settle the matter: for the first six centuries there was no ecumenical council called but what was called by an emperor never by a pope! The decisions of those councils were considered authoritative and nowhere in them was there the slightest or barest allusion to a pope. Why not? If there had been such, quite obviously there would have been acknowledgment of the same.

Why Peter Could Not Be A Pope

The pope is supposed to be the successor of Peter; and yet, is it not strange that Peter in neither of his epistles recognized the eminence of that office? Rather he referred to himself as a servant, as an apostle, as a fellow-elder. Further, is it not strange as recorded in Acts 8, when it was desired to have men sent from Jerusalem to Samaria that they might lay hands on certain ones, that Peter and John were sent? Have you ever heard of a pope being sent anywhere? Can you, in the greatest stretch of your imagination, conceive of the present pope being sent on a mission by anyone? Does then Peter, being sent to Samaria, indicate the preeminence which is ordinarily attached to the office of pope? Something more: in the council held in Jerusalem as recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, was it not James, if any one at all, who presided? Was it not James who handed down the finality of the decision? Did not Paul say, "For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles." Does not Paul in the Galatian letter tell of withstanding Peter to his face, because he stood condemned? Peter associated with the Gentiles in Antioch before the coming of the Jewish brethren, but when they came, Peter withdrew himself from the Gentiles. Paul condemned Peter because he would have Gentiles live as did the Jews. Does that indicate the preeminence of Peter? You have heard it said that the Catholic Church never changes. Peter had a wife, as shown in Matthew 8:14. The Catholic Church would have you think he was the first pope. Can his successor take a wife? Peter being right, the Catholic Church is wrong. He was certainly not in harmony with it.

Answer 2

*Is Catholic*

Apostolic succession can be found in (2 Tim. 2:2). "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also"

Additionally, the Office of the Keys, which refers back to an office in the Davidic Kingdom Isaiah 22:22 which Jesus quotes almost exactly to Peter in Matt 16:19 demands that there be succession.

Also we know that Peter was the first Pope because history records Linus as the second Pope of Rome and successor to Peter.

Jesus calls Peter "Satan" because 1. Jesus has not yet given Peter the power of the keys. This comes in John 21:15-17. 2. It is a reference to Is 8:14 where by the alliance made by God with Israel will be a stumbling block to Israel..in other words the idea that God could die will be hard to Israel. Here Peter is being ensnared by Satan to think that the Christ should not die. Jesus is praying that Peter will not be trapped by Satan's snare.

Answer 3

Catholics consider Peter to be the first pope becuase of the Petrine Doctrine, in which Jesus says to Peter that he is the rock upon which he (Jesus) will build his church. According to Catholic tradition, Peter was the first bishop of Rome. And the pope is indeed the bishop of Rome.

If you mean papal succession as the election process, I don't think the Bible references anything like that. the current system of the college of cardinals was developed in the eleventh century.

Answer 4

Actually, it is chapter 16, not 17, and Jesus calls Peter "Satan" because Peter, not understanding, said "God forbid (that You should be killed)"

Apostolic succession (under which papal succession falls) can be found in Acts 1:15-26.

Answer 5

Not only does Jesus tell Peter that he is the rock upon which He will build His Church and that He gives Peter the keys to the kingdom in Mathew 17, Jesus also tell Peter to "Feed my lambs....Tend my sheep....Feed my sheep."

Where in the Bible does it say that everything we are to believe comes from the Bible?

God bless,
Stanbo

Answer 6

Sounds a bit like a retrogressive fit doesn't it?

Direct descendency to the divine is carte blanche to perform any evil deed in the name of god.

Answer 7

Peter was not the first pope. It was bishop Thomas in 872 AD when he created the Roman Catholic church. Before that it was the Eastern Orthodox church and they did not have popes.

Answer 8

catholic tradition DOES NOT OVERRIDE GODS Word and Writings....Catholicism is MAN MADE CHURCH! that is IT! Gods Church Does NOT INCLUDE all the humble jumble that Catholics have in place!

Answer 9

HAHAHAHAHA Peter, the first pope. You make me laugh. First of all Cathlacs weren't around untill about 200 years after the death of christ and the apostles. Peter was the prophet after christ died, the head of the church that was set up by Christ, but when peter died there was no more preisthood on the earth.

Answer 10

Catholic tradition. Catholic tradition overrides everything else.