The first Pope.?

Question

Is it a proven fact that Peter. Jesus Christ disciple was the first Pope of the Christian faith. And another question is it true that some of the Popes throught the Christian history were under the age of 18?

Answer 1

Yes.

The birth dates and even years of early Popes are frequently not available. In modern times, Popes have generally been elected at older ages. Today a man of 65 years is generally considered too young to be Pope.

The youngest Pope was probably either
+ Pope Benedict IX who became Pope at an unknown age between 11 and 20
+ Pope John XII who was 18 at the beginning of his papacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ages_of_Popes#Youngest_Popes

With love in Christ.

Answer 2

Yes, Peter was the first Pope. Jesus gave him the responsibility of watching over the Church when he told him "Feed my sheep" in John 21:17. Jesus also told him "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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." (Mathew 16:18-19) So Jesus was making Peter His regent after He would leave earth.
Sorry, I have no idea if that thing about the 18 year old Popes is true or not. Probably not. It's a BIG responsibility.

Answer 3

Yes peter is the first pope.

The long diatribe against the Catholic Church is premised on the fact that "it isn't so...since it isn't stated in the Bible." The premise is that the only truth we can know is that which is contained within the Bible.

This is a false idea. There are lots of things that are true that are not contained in the Bible. In fact, the Bible itself even acknowledges this. "Jesus taught them a great many things, not all of them are recorded here."

Moreover, this notion that the Church doesn't have such authority-- because such authority was not mentioned in the Cble... It must be rememberedhat this Catholic Church is the same Church which decided which books comprised the books of the Bible in the first place at the Council of Nicea!! If they had no authority from the outset when they put the Bible together, why would you trust the Bible more than the Church that decided what should be in it?

Impaled by his own sword...

Answer 4

No Peter was NO Pope. When did the doctrine that Peter is the head of the church and that he supposedly has successors begin? It was established in the Roman Catholic Church in the Nicene Creed, A.D. 325 and 381. But the pure, uncorrupted Christians living in the days of the apostles never knew such a doctrine. Indeed, up till the fourth century professed Christians did not hold to such a teaching.

Answer 5

Yep. Some were even married. And a propos to nothing, some were very, very immoral and unethical and got the position as a result of political wheeling and dealing. Google "the borgias."

(Please, no need to bash me. I am 100% Catholic, but I know this is true about our past. It does not mean that I think the Church is still that way.)

Answer 6

Jesus Himself said to Peter, "on this rock i will build my Church." Rock meaning his sturdy foundation to lead the Catholic Church after Jesus went back to Hevean. =]

i dont think its possible that some popes were under 18 cuz you can be ordained as a priest as early as 16 after i think 4 years of study, then another 5 or 10 to become bishop, then another long time to be arch-bishop, a Cardinal, and eventually pope. so no, i dot think so.

Answer 7

Peter was the first Pope.
I find nothing in the encyclopedia that gives the ages.
I would think not as there is so much he has to accomplish before he is considered.

Answer 8

No it is not true that Peter was the first Pope. In fact the Papacy requires the Pope to be unmarried,Peter was married and in fact the Bible records that Jesus healed Peter's Mother-in-Law. Roman Catholics made a dangerous move declaring Peter to be the true Rock Jesus spoke of, and here is why..."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 what-soever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven.” It is upon these two vitally important Scriptures, therefore, that the entire Roman Catholic monolith is supported. For, if Peter is not Catholicism’s foundation rock, if he was not the first pope, if he was not endowed with infallibility, then all its popes have been frauds, and all its claims of divine authorization are reduced to wishful vagaries. In this critical matter, history – not anti-Catholic "heretics" – is the Vatican’s most relentless, indefatigable enemy. It shows, for example, that no bishop of Rome considered himself to have any greater authority than the many other bishops, nor sought monarchial authority over all Christendom, until the 3rd century was well underway. Then, Calixtus I, whose most celebrated accomplishment recorded in Britannica is the transfer of the Roman Christians’ cemetery from the Via Salaria to the Via Appia, attempted to hijack our Lord’s legacy by citing Matthew 16:18 as the establishment of Peter and all succeeding bishops of Rome to be rulers over all the churches. Putting a wagon in a garage does not make it an automobile; and declaring oneself to be the boss doesn’t produce a boss. The great Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, ridiculed Calixtus and his claim, referring to him as a “usurper.” In its Catechisms the Vatican quotes Tertullian whenever it is expedient, but you won’t find his appellation for Calixtus I in any RCC printed matter.Some who recognize his office as Bishop of Antioch and, later, as Bishop of Rome or Pope, hold that his episcopacy held a primacy only of honour, as a first among equals. Some propose that his primacy was not intended to pass to his successors. Still others view Peter as not having held the office of bishop or overseer, on the grounds that this office was a development of later Christianity.[citation needed] Some Protestants do not use the title of "saint" in reference to him. It is fact that Peter was crucified in Rome and if he was the head of the entire Christian Church as th Catholics maintain I think this would have kept even Rome from putting him to death. For at the tiem of His death the Christian Sect of Judaism had spread far and wide. He was the Bishop iverseer) of Rome and nothing more. Over the years the Catholics have built some very convincing myths, Peter as supreme among the Aposltes. Mary as a Lifelong virgin (that one is discredited in the Bible itself! Praying the Rosary...Jesus condemned repetitious prayers as being not pleasing to God. And the Rosary is praying to Mary more than about Jesus. That is another blatant error of the Roman Church, that did not srpead to the other Churches.

Answer 9

The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the Book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.”

The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes, were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Christ built His church upon Peter.

But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the Church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the Church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this, and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome, comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

Also, nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops, or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).

What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace...” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).

Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic no. Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere is his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the Gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).

Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy.

Answer 10

no
don't know