Was Peter the First Pope? . . .

[@tonyl3762]

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.

[@nateewongo3905]

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.

[@timmaddock2672]

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 :)

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Tim thank you for the comment! As we move through the first five centuries in this series, we will be ‘checking in,’ as it were, on developments in Rome, especially with regard to the development of its hierarchical structure. One thing to remember is that claims of primacy are not inextricably linked to monepiscopal structure in Rome. So, whether there always was a strong single bishop or not, it has no direct bearing on the question of primacy among the churches. The *church* of Rome presides in love among the *churches.* Whether Rome had a strong presbytery or a strong monepiscopate immediately following Peter and Paul’s deaths, it does not change the fact that the Roman church’s primacy was recognized by the other churches. The justification for, and understanding of, Rome’s primacy will develop and crystallize over time, but the *fact* of her primacy will remain unshaken (very much like the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Everyone believed it, but the manner of the Presence will take time to flesh out-- pun intended 😉). Anyway, we’ll definitely be doing a Rome episode soon in the second century, so stay tuned, but I hope this at least gets you a quick answer to a complex question!

[@ignatiusjackson235]

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.

[@tusolusdominus]

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

[@billlee2194]

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

[@jaredbebee630]

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

[@alexchristopher221]

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).

[@kyrptonite1825]

Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom himself.

[@pepesellsbutwhosbuying7925]

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

[@thedon978]

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.

[@J3susIsL0rd]

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.

[@ignatiusjackson235]

That's absolutely stupid. Simon Peter wasn't even called "Simon," and every source talks about them doing entirely different things as entirely different people. The only thing they apparently held in common is a first name and a ticket to Rome. James the Great and James the Just had more in common. That doesn't make them identical. Jeez, dood. Don't even bother with that noise.

[@rbnmnt3341]

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.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Watch the video and wrestle with the content before commenting please. Nowhere in Scripture is it recommended that one be quick to speak and slow to listen, either. The title of the episode is a prompt, not a conclusion. We present a very balanced, nuanced view in this video. We are not Roman polemicists.

[@rbnmnt3341]

@@TheCatholicBrothers I read the bible. It carries more weight than the video.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

@@rbnmnt3341 yes you have the Bible….interpreted without the historical grid within which it was written. I have never understood this peculiar mentality, driven by the current culture of social media, where so many people are too intellectually lazy to get past a title/thumbnail but still eager to leave a comment. Thumbnails and titles are meant to be provocative, because they are prompts for discussion. The content of our video is balanced and nuanced. We have our own conclusions based on the evidence, but we recognize the complexity of the issues at hand and do not shy away from those realities. If everyone shared your mentality, theological discussion would never get off the ground. I encourage you to “renew the spirit of your mind” (Ephesians 4:23) and adopt a more intellectually generous approach to biblical and historical theology. Your life would be richer for it, and you may even learn a thing or two from others who do not share your perspective.

[@rbnmnt3341]

@@TheCatholicBrothers catholicism can teach me NOTHING. Except that it's a false religion. Everything I need to know is written therein.

[@Vntihero]

@@rbnmnt3341 Study history and stop being ignorant out of the hate and pride in your heart…. And btw the Bible was compiled and canonized by Catholics and the Pope at the council of ROME in 382 AD….. so it is indeed a Catholic book!

[@brianfarley926]

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?

[@13gladius28]

*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).

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

@@13gladius28 lol try to go further than the thumbnail and actually listen to the episode prior to commenting

[@carolinepedersenable]

James the Lords brother? Brother how?

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

@@carolinepedersenable we address that in our episodes on James…

[@mcspankey4810]

Wonderful

[@philipdevlin8465]

Thanks guys amen 🙏🏽 🙌

[@dynamic9016]

Respect.

[@Migz2682]

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

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

No, because Peter was the unique leader of the Apostles, appointed specifically by Christ, not Paul. However, the fact that Rome saw the culmination of both the Petrine and Pauline ministries made her unique among the churches as these two apostles represented the “church of Jews” and the “church of Gentiles” (Galatians 2:7). Jerusalem was founded by Peter and Antioch was founded by Peter (Peter was Antioch’s first pope as well, for example) along with many churches in Pontus, Bithynia, Galatia, etc. So, what makes Rome uniquely Petrine and ‘universal’? According to the earliest sources, it was that Peter *and* Paul (whom many assumed were at odds with one another, Gal 2:11) consummated both of their ministries there, in peace, and in unity of doctrine. As Tertullian put it, “they spilled forth their blood and their doctrine” upon the Church of Rome.

[@Migz2682]

@@TheCatholicBrothers thank you for your very thorough response. Why didn't paul succeed Peter in rome? Was paul a bishop too? Who ordained the next pope, the other apostles?

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

@@Migz2682 Paul didn’t succeed Peter because Paul died in the same persecution as Peter. Peter would have laid his hands on many men to make them presbyters, as was common apostolic practice (1 Tim 4:14). Upon the death of the two apostles, there likely would have been a vote among the presbyters or a casting of lots (which appears to have been the Jerusalem/Petrine practice (Acts 1:21-26), for the man to succeed as proto-presbyter/episcopos of the Roman church(es).

[@Migz2682]

@@TheCatholicBrothers i have been watching your videos and appreciate them very much. I just finished watching the one of Peter's jaw bones. Regarding, the pope, I also thought of why none of the other apostles were considered for pope. I know that Thomas, Andrew, and Mark started some of the other churches. Were they considered bishops? Thank you for making these videos.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

@@Migz2682 thanks you for the kind words, really glad to have you aboard 😃 By the time Peter and Paul died in Nero’s persecution most of the Twelve had already died. The only premier apostle left was John, and John was ministering to the churches of Asia Minor. We cannot forget that, apart from the Twelve, there were many men who were considered to be “apostles” (ie: men who had conversed with the Lord directly and were sent on mission). You had the Twelve, apostles and prophets, episcopoi (bishops), presbyters, and the deacons. While the episcopoi/prebyters and deacons were stationary members, apostles and prophets tended to be itinerant members of the early church. So, for the most part, until apostles became too old to continue traveling, the bulk of their mission was not to act as sitting bishops in a single place but rather to move from city to city either establishing churches or strengthening/organizing existing ones. While the episcopal and presbyteral offices were “local,” the apostolic office was “universal” (1 Cor 1:17)- apostles had immediate authority wherever they went (which is why the Apostle Paul found it so scandalous that people doubted his apostleship in certain cities that he visited, 1 Cor 9:2-12). However, that is not to say that Apostles were not *also* considered to be bishops and presbyters. Peter clearly refers to himself as a “fellow presbyter” (1 Peter 5:1). To put it simply, all apostles were also bishops/presbyters, but not all bishops/presbyters were apostles. So, it is correct to say that Peter was the first pope of Rome, just as Mark was the first pope of Alexandria and John the first pope of Ephesus, etc., because to be an apostle was automatically to have the authority of a bishop in every city. When the apostles all die out, the next natural place that the church looked to were to those who had a proximity to the apostles (Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias of Hierapolis, etc.). This next generation of “apostolic fathers,” as they are called, stepped into the function of the ‘Apostolate’ and served as the Bishops and Guardians of their flocks. In this unbroken stream of succession from one generation to the next (1 Tim 1:6) in the laying on of hands and commissioning to do the work that the apostles had begun, we eventually see the blossoming of the Church’s current structures and ministries, from the heights of the Papacy all the way down to the lowliness of your local parish’s deacon.

[@JenniferVeterans4truth]

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..

[@chucksmith4624]

*PETER THE FIRST POPE REBUTTAL TO PROTESTANTS & DOUG BATCHELOR **kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5WVpKKme9Gpq5o* Here's the breakdown on subjects and time for the video 0;00 *The Death of Peter in Rome from Scripture* 7:19 *The Church of Rome in Scripture* 27:19 *Peter means Rock* 41:22 *Get Behind me Satan from Mt.**16:22* 48:31 *Who is Chief and Who is the Greatest* 57:03 *Do Pope's or the Church over rule scripture?* 59:57 *Augustine on Peter and the Keys to the Kingdom* 1:03.12 *Why Popes Don't Marry like Peter* 1:07.22 Answers to Acts 21:8 and Gal. 2:9 1:19.31 Answers to Acts 12:17, Acts 13:15, Acts 15:13 1:27.51 *Proof of Apostolic Succession*

[@JenniferVeterans4truth]

@@chucksmith4624 Doug Batchelor is a 7th day Adventist his Anticatholicism is engrained in him for any Christian of any denomination to deny the Catholic church was the true church is already lost. Don't misunderstand me im not saying everyone needs to be Catholic. Im saying if you deny Jesus set up an official system to ensure all the books of the Bible would be compiled and preserved than you can't even trust your Bible that's a historical fact

[@michaelreese1436]

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.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Hey Michael! Did you get a chance to listen to the episode yet? I believe we traced that out when we surveyed the Eusebean tradition. But if you’d like more detail or if the video doesn’t answer a specific question you have, please reply with it here, and we will address it for you! Thanks for tuning in.

[@chucksmith4624]

*PETER THE FIRST POPE REBUTTAL TO PROTESTANTS & DOUG BATCHELOR **kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5WVpKKme9Gpq5o* Here's the breakdown on subjects and time for the video 0;00 *The Death of Peter in Rome from Scripture* 7:19 *The Church of Rome in Scripture* 27:19 *Peter means Rock* 41:22 *Get Behind me Satan from Mt.**16:22* 48:31 *Who is Chief and Who is the Greatest* 57:03 *Do Pope's or the Church over rule scripture?* 59:57 *Augustine on Peter and the Keys to the Kingdom* 1:03.12 *Why Popes Don't Marry like Peter* 1:07.22 Answers to Acts 21:8 and Gal. 2:9 1:19.31 Answers to Acts 12:17, Acts 13:15, Acts 15:13 1:27.51 *Proof of Apostolic Succession*

[@dannydalvi1761]

Protestant is invented by Martin Luther

[@benjaminfalzon4622]

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...

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Ben….. Did you even listen to the episode? C’mon friend. We know that to claim that Peter was a Roman Catholic is an anachronism- as much of an anachronism as it is to say that he was a “Jew.” Peter was a very specific kind of Jew, in no way related to modern Judaism, which is a rabbinical religion that post-dates Christianity. Peter was……Peter. The title of the episode is a prompt for discussion, and we make sure to break down the anachronisms as we roll through. Listen to the episode.

[@chucksmith4624]

*PETER THE FIRST POPE REBUTTAL TO PROTESTANTS & DOUG BATCHELOR **kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5WVpKKme9Gpq5o* Here's the breakdown on subjects and time for the video 0;00 *The Death of Peter in Rome from Scripture* 7:19 *The Church of Rome in Scripture* 27:19 *Peter means Rock* 41:22 *Get Behind me Satan from Mt.**16:22* 48:31 *Who is Chief and Who is the Greatest* 57:03 *Do Pope's or the Church over rule scripture?* 59:57 *Augustine on Peter and the Keys to the Kingdom* 1:03.12 *Why Popes Don't Marry like Peter* 1:07.22 Answers to Acts 21:8 and Gal. 2:9 1:19.31 Answers to Acts 12:17, Acts 13:15, Acts 15:13 1:27.51 *Proof of Apostolic Succession*

[@caringmother6296]

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.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Hi there, thanks for the comment! My hunch however, based on the premises of your argument, is that you did not watch the entire video. It would appear that you are responding to the title of the episode rather than the substance of it. Please watch our two episodes on the Jerusalem Church and the council of Jerusalem, and then watch this episode in its entirety to hear the rebuttal to what you’ve commented here. (You may be getting hung up on the title “pope” too. I would lay the title aside to avoid anachronism and stick to the level of function and charism).

[@caringmother6296]

@@TheCatholicBrothers Ok, thank you

[@alexchristopher221]

As soon as Simon pronounces the first papal infallible decree in Church history, Jesus changes his name to Peter, in Greek Petros. The name ‘Cephas’ (also spelled Kepha) is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word “rock” (See Jn 1:42; 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 2:9). The Greek text is a translation of Jesus' words, which were actually spoken in Aramaic. Aramaic only had one word for rock, kepha which explains why Peter is often called Cephas in the Bible. The word kepha in Aramaic means "huge rock." The Aramaic word for "little stone" is evna and Peter isn’t called "Evna.” In Aramaic, Jesus said "You are Peter (Kepha) and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my Church." The metaphor works well in Aramaic where nouns are neither feminine nor masculine. D. A. Carson explains, “… the words petros and petra were synonyms in first-century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek-an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used” ( The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368). The reference to Jesus as the cornerstone comes from Old Testament passages and refers to the sanctuary or Temple of God where the Israelites worshipped (Ps 118:22; Isa 8:4, etc.). As a cornerstone, Jesus is the new Temple of a New Covenant form of worship (Jn 2:18-22). Without Jesus, there could be no fulfillment of Israel, including a new form of worship centered on our Lord and his sacrifice on Calvary which is sacramentally re-presented in the celebration of Holy Mass (Luke 22:19-20), as opposed to the Old Covenant sacrifices offered at the Temple in Jerusalem. Thus, there could be no Church, which is the fulfillment of Israel, without Jesus as the cornerstone of the New Covenant. Still, Jesus chooses Peter as the rock upon which to build his Church (Matt. 16:18-19).

[@chucksmith4624]

*PETER THE FIRST POPE REBUTTAL TO PROTESTANTS & DOUG BATCHELOR **kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5WVpKKme9Gpq5o* Here's the breakdown on subjects and time for the video 0;00 *The Death of Peter in Rome from Scripture* 7:19 *The Church of Rome in Scripture* 27:19 *Peter means Rock* 41:22 *Get Behind me Satan from Mt.**16:22* 48:31 *Who is Chief and Who is the Greatest* 57:03 *Do Pope's or the Church over rule scripture?* 59:57 *Augustine on Peter and the Keys to the Kingdom* 1:03.12 *Why Popes Don't Marry like Peter* 1:07.22 Answers to Acts 21:8 and Gal. 2:9 1:19.31 Answers to Acts 12:17, Acts 13:15, Acts 15:13 1:27.51 *Proof of Apostolic Succession*

[@Ken-dh2te]

Amen to all you say brother. Roman Catholicism is heretical and apostate.

[@gamers7800]

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.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

What?

[@gamers7800]

@@TheCatholicBrothers Sorry that I wasn’t clear. Let me ask you, do you think that St James was the biological brother of Jesus?

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

@@gamers7800 no, most likely a son of Joseph through a prior marriage or a close cousin. We obviously believe in the perpetual virginity of the BVM.

[@gamers7800]

@@TheCatholicBrothers Glad to hear that. 🤦‍♂️ I personally believe Joseph was a virgin as well, uniquely chosen by God for this holy mission in life. God bless!

[@gamers7800]

@1Peter 3:15 I’ll stick with the early church fathers, you can have the guy born in 1985 who can interpret scriptures better than them!

[@woozyjoe4703]

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

[@lajarhead8308]

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.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Yea, the problem is that he did, though…. And all the early fathers attest to this fact.

[@lajarhead8308]

@@TheCatholicBrothers nah he didn’t. There is no scriptural evidence of this and no the “church fathers” didn’t think he did. In fact the first “pope” that claimed primacy didn’t happen until the 3rd century. Would suggest you look into the catholic bishop that researched the “fathers” and found many different views on Peter being the first pope.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

@@lajarhead8308 lol no evidence in Scripture of Peter being the leader of the Apostles? Now that wouldn’t even pass muster among the most Protestant of historical and biblical scholars, my friend.

[@lajarhead8308]

@@TheCatholicBrothers wonderful attempt at straw manning the argument. What was actually pointed out was, no evidence of Peter’s “primacy” among the apostles.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

@@lajarhead8308 what else is “leadership” than an exercise of primacy within a group? You are trying to draw a difference where this is only semantic distinction.

[@adothariman966]

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

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

This proves nothing..

[@adothariman966]

@@TheCatholicBrothers Blatant denial. James was immediately made Bishop of Jerusalem in 33 AD, which was 9 years before the Church was founded in Antioch Not as you attempted to say in order to avoid subjecting Peter to James, after Peter left Jerusalem

[@alexchristopher221]

James was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem (temporal authority), but the universal primacy of authority was conferred on Peter (Matthew 16:16-19). In the kingdom of David, the king who ascended to the throne delegated his royal authority to a chief steward who would rule and govern in his absence. The king would formally invest his chief steward with this authority by presenting him with the keys to the kingdom. As the keeper of the keys, the chief steward (vizier or vicar) was said to be “over the house” of the king, viz., the house of David. He would be second only to the king and would have plenary power over the palace and the authority to pass judgments over the king’s subjects. Jesus came into the world to restore the kingdom of David in a new dimension, so like his royal ancestors on the throne of David, he presented his chief steward or vicar the keys to a visible kingdom, namely the Church. He appointed Peter over “the house of God” (cf. 2 Cor 5:1; 1 Tim 3:15; 1 Pet 4:15) who would rule and govern God’s household in the king’s absence after his ascension into heaven. The Hebrew Scriptures mention “keys” only once, and that is in the context of the authority of the Davidic king’s chief steward. Around 715 B.C., Hezekiah was the king of the Southern Kingdom, and Shebna was his chief steward or vice-regent. God reveals through the prophet Isaiah that He will remove Shebna from his office and replace him with Eliakim, to whom he will give the “key to the house of David” (Isaiah 12:15-23). God gives Eliakim the key to the house of David which was previously held by Shebna. This office is transferrable by appointing successors. Having custody of the key to David’s kingdom, whatever Eliakim opens, no one will shut, and whatever he shuts, no one will open. In other words, his final judgment is indisputable and irrevocable since he represents the king in his absence and speaks for the king in accordance with his will. Eliakim will be known as a “father” (papa or pope) to Israel in the exercise of his office. Just as God was directly involved in the administration of his kingdom in the Old Dispensation, so He is in charge of the administration of His kingdom in the New Dispensation. Just as Eliakim had the authority to “open and shut,” so, too, Peter is given the authority to “bind and loose.” Since this authority is derived from possessing the keys to the kingdom, Jesus confers this authority on Peter alone and not also on the Twelve. John Salza explains what the terms binding and loosing mean in a Jewish context. “’Binding and loosing’ (Heb. asar ve-hittar) were common rabbinical terms used by the Jewish religious authorities of the day. These terms described their legislative and judicial authority to ‘forbid’ or ‘permit.’ This included rules of conduct (halakah) for God’s people, as well as issuing definitive interpretations of Scripture, oral tradition, and the whole of the Mosaic law. In short, the terms described the Pharisees’ authority over doctrinal and disciplinary matters” (John Salza, The Biblical Basis for the Papacy). We have an example of Peter exercising this primacy authority in Acts 15, 12-17. At the general council in Jerusalem, he resolves the first doctrinal and disciplinary issue on whether the Gentiles should be circumcised and baptized. None of the apostles in attendance question or dispute with Peter but remain silent. Only after Peter issues his statement, in the capacity of Christ’s chief steward or vicar on earth, do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) respond in support of Peter’s definitive declaration. Finally, James, who has presided over the council as Bishop of Jerusalem, gives his assent. You're kindly invited to read more in my blog: allaboutcatholicism.com/2021/02/07/upon-this-rock/

[@adothariman966]

@@alexchristopher221 Nope. St. James was the first universal Bishop and Head of the Church. Peter and the Apostles deferred to him because he was the brother of the Lord Yeah St. Cyril in his letter to Maximian of Constantinople applied the prophecy of Eliakim to him [the Bishop of Constantinople] And indeed this prophecy has come true even in another sense. For Shebna of Rome, having been found corrupt and false, had been supplanted in Primacy by Eliakim of Constantinople Nope. St. Cyprian tells us that St. James spoke the more softly as one holding supreme authority, and letting another [St. Peter] spoke the more strongly on his behalf You're kindly invited to read the Church Fathers

[@adothariman966]

@@alexchristopher221 LETTER XXXI TO MAXIMIAN OF CONSTANTINOPLE CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA V. 'Accordingly we rejoice with you since you have the true and blameless faith. For a man, whom you know, has arisen to offer sacrifice and much time was provided for you, and experience in affairs has crowned you. He is a man who has spent much time in good thoughts about you, for his most reverend grey head has thus gone past its youth. For it was necessary, it was necessary to give to the very select flocks of our Savior a wise and experienced master, having a mind filled with pastoral skill, one who knows how to graze his flock in a good meadow and a rich pasture, who has been tested in affairs as a trustworthy and sincere administrator. Those who have been accustomed to live thus Christ also suffers to approach him and deems worthy of every praise, but those who are not such he deposes from the ministry entrusted to their hands' VI. 'And that this is true can be seen from Holy Scripture. For God says in one place to the blessed prophet Isaiah, Go get you in to him that dwells in the priests' quarters, to Sobna the steward, and say to him, Why are you so occupied and what is there that interests you so? Behold the Lord of hosts will throw out and destroy you, mortal man, and will take away your garment and your glorious crown, and will toss you into a large and spacious country and there you shall die, and you shall be removed from your function and station. And it shall come to pass in that day that I shall call my servant Eliacim, the son of Helcia, and I shall clothe him with your robe, and I will give your crown to him, and I will give your function into his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of J uda. And I will give the glory of David to him, and he shall rule, and there will be none to speak against him, and I will make him ruler in a trustworthy place, and he shall be a throne of glory to the house of his father, and every man of glory in his father's house will trust him, from the small to the great, and they shall depend upon him in that day. Thus, says the Lord of hosts, the man who was fastened in a trustworthy place shall be removed and he shall fall, and the glory which was upon him will be taken away, because the Lord has spoken it' VII. 'Therefore, the God of all truly loves the faithful man and the sincere minister, but he who is not such a man, he turns himself away from as unholy. But he will applaud us for encouraging your holiness, and will gladden you with a rich hand by graces from above, so that by teaching aright the word of truth and following after the faith of the holy Fathers you may persevere in high esteem through the mercy and benevolence of Christ, the Savior of us all, through whom and with whom may there be to God the Father with the Holy Spirit glory and power for ages and ages. Amen' And this prophecy by Isaiah has also been fulfilled in another manner. For the profane and corrupt Shebna of Rome was cast out from the saced and divine precinct, after the manner of Lucifer. But a wise and faithful steward He had appointed to bear the Keys of His House together with and on behalf of all Bishops

[@adothariman966]

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

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Hey Adot, we addressed these questions in the episode. Were you able to give it a listen yet? - Peter led the Jerusalem community for years before handing it over to James so that he could go on mission to the areas Peter lists in the opening of his letter (1 Peter 1:1). James received the Jerusalem Church, he did not found it. James was a local episcopos of a local community with ecumenical significance; but Peter was the premier apostle whose influence went far beyond Jerusalem. (We draw this point out in the video in detail, especially when it comes to the point about how the first stories of the Gospel are being transmitted beyond Jerusalem- where James does not factor in, but Peter and the Apostles do. The diaspora knows Peter far better than it knows James). - Peter was not in Rome when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, which is why he is not mentioned, as he was still fulfilling the final stages of his ministry in Asia Minor before departing for Rome. However, the first Christians of Rome were converted (and most likely commissioned) by Peter in Jerusalem in Acts 2 (note verse 10- both jews and proselytes from Rome were baptized). - An apostle was de facto head of the Church wherever he went, which makes them the first “proto-presbyters” (1 Peter 5:1), which is quite literally the most fundamental definition of a Bishop. Also, considering that churches established by Peter tended to have a monepiscopal polity as early as 107AD (the epistles of Ignatius), it is likely that Peter and Paul each followed distinct (though not contradictory) practices of organization for the local ecclesia. Pauline communities tended to have presbyteries while Petrine communities tended to show episcopates, including Jerusalem itself. These two principles of organization co-mingled in Rome with each apostle’s ministry there, hence the foggy picture we get from the letters of Clement, Ignatius, and the Shepherd about the church’s structure. (Note Paul’s singular intent of “establishing” the community in Rome upon his arrival, Rom 1:11). This is not to say, anachronistically, that Peter was a Pope strutting around Rome in a miter with a curia lol.. Its simply to demonstrate that the seeds of later developments are planted by the apostles themselves.

[@adothariman966]

@@TheCatholicBrothers Hi brothers, 1. According to Holy Tradition the twelve Apostles appointed James as Bishop of Jerusalem before persecution and dispersion of Christians leading to the founding of the Church in Antioch So your information was wrong there 2. The Epistle to the Romans was written in around 55 AD. Peter was in Rome from 40 AD to 65 AD when he was martyred by Nero Paul wouldn't have written the Epistle in the first place, if Peter was ever Bishop of Rome 3. The historical records tell us that Peter was Bishop while in Rome, because he was Apostle. But he was never Bishop of Rome. Linus was Bishop of Rome while Peter was alive in Rome, and then Cletus was the next Bishop of Rome while Peter was alive in Rome This was because Peter was never Bishop of Rome

[@adothariman966]

@@TheCatholicBrothers And nope. There were no different models of Church government. The Early Church was established from the typological pattern of the Old Testament: 1. The Church was the New Israel 2. The twelve Apostles were the twelve Patriarchs of New Israel 3. The seventy Disciples were the seventy elders Each Eucharistic Synaxis had a High Priest occupying the Davidic Throne [St. Cyril] and holding the Order of Melchizedec [St. Epiphanius]

[@adothariman966]

@@TheCatholicBrothers The Church of Antioch was founded in 42 AD, while according to Jerome, James was Bishop of Jerusalem for 30 years until his martyrdom in 70 AD

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Thanks for the comments, Adot. Really. But, reliance on spurious traditions is out of sync with what the historical record actually demonstrates. God bless!

[@triciaperry2234]

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.

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

Watch the episode before commenting, please. There is not a single scholar who would agree with your contention about Peter never having been in Rome, no matter how many Protestant pastors repeat this ahistorical assertion from the pulpit. There is too much epigraphic, archaeological, and textual evidence to the contrary that it would be as ridiculous as claiming that Julius Caesar never made it to Egypt (as there is just as much, if not more, evidence that Peter died in Rome).

[@adothariman966]

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'

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

We literally mentioned the many sees of Peter in the video, which tells me that you didn’t listen to the episode intently and in good faith. We also mentioned why Rome is distinct from those other sees of Peter. This whole business of James being made the bishop of Jerusalem in 33AD runs contrary to the biblical record in the final chapter of the gospels and the opening chapters of the book of Acts. You are reading 4th and 5th century traditions at face value and anachronistically imposing their assertions onto the 1st century. Its just bad history, is all. I understand that you want to accept everything that every single church father writes at face value (except those things which would lend themselves to Rome holding primacy among the churches- which is ALSO in Pope Gregory’s corpus if you are not cherry picking), but on this channel we are doing actual, historical analysis. There is not a single scholar, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise, who would take Epiphanius’ pious recounting of the founding of the Jerusalem church at face value as you are. Pious histories of the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries are valuable for understanding how 4th, 5th, and 6th century writers viewed the 1st century church, but they are not of much value for understanding how the actual 1st century church viewed itself and how it actually operated (later writers have their own motives for shaping the history of the church, which have to be scrutinized within their context and not projected backwards onto earlier periods of the Church). For that, you need to consult 1st century sources. ‘Pious histories’ are not what this channel trades in, so if you are looking for those grade school histories, i would suggest you consult another channel. I hope that, reading your comments back, you will realize two things: (1) You didn’t listen to the episode carefully or in good faith, but you listened with the ears of an Orthodox warrior, and (2) You have done nothing but talk right past every point we made in the episode and are acting like a squirrel playing chess with the points you are ‘making’ (which are either red herrings or are merely poor pieces of evidence for the horse you’re trying to ride). In most of your comments, I’m barely certain of what you’re trying to prove, apart from your singular contention that James was bishop of Jerusalem in 33AD and that Peter was subject to him, which is historically preposterous and based in absolutely no first or even second century source material, but on a singular tradition almost 400 years after the fact (when Eastern suspicion of Roman authority was already well into its post-nascent phase and polemical histories abounded to bolster it). The Book of Acts literally gives us the historical record of the Jerusalem Church, and you are invoking Epiphanius of Salamis to contradict it (?). Sorry, like i said, its just bad history.

[@adothariman966]

@@TheCatholicBrothers 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

[@adothariman966]

@@TheCatholicBrothers Nope. You're just throwing adjectives and adverbs around to discredit without giving anything substantial. What you yourself have are mere presuppositional conjenctures What we have are testimonies from the Fathers Still doesn't change the fact that there were three historical Sees of Peter and three historical successors of Peter. Rome wasn't distinct in itself but only received Primacy from the Nicene Synod = refer to Canon XXVIII Chalcedon and Session XVI Chalcedon

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

So since there are three sees of Peter, according to the counsels of Gregory the Great, when- i must ask-will Constantinople and Moscow submit to the authority of those three Petrine Sees? You.....do.....know that Pope Gregory was arguing against the authority of Constantinople when he invoked the Petrine Tetrarchy, right? You are also still proving my point- you didn’t listen to the video. Because we addressed why Rome was premier even among the Petrine Tetrarchy. Here is the testimony of the Father that you keep invoking. Let me know when you are ready to submit to the whole of his testimony rather than to part of it. “All who in the whole world bear the name of Christian and truly understand the Christian faith know and believe that Saint Peter, the prince of the apostles, is the father of all Christians and their first shepherd after Christ, and that the holy Roman Church is the mother and mistress of all the Churches. If, then, you believe and unshakeably hold this, such as I am, your brother and unworthy master, I ask and command you by Almighty God to help and succour your father and mother, if through them you would have the absolution of all your sins, and blessing and grace in this world and in the world to come.”- Pope Saint Gregory the Great

[@TheCatholicBrothers]

And spare me this “contradicting a holy doctor” stuff when referring to Epiphanius. Being a catholic Christian does not mean accepting every single utterance of every church father, otherwise YOU would have to also be an iconoclast, as Epiphanius himself was. You are treating the corpus of the Fathers as a Protestant treats the bible: anachronistically, eisogetically, and selectively. A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.

[@adothariman966]

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...'

[@adothariman966]

@1Peter 3:15 Kephas never became Bishop of Rome. All Bishops are Successors of Kephas. All Apostles hold the Keys of Heaven

[@adothariman966]

@1Peter 3:15 Nope. Given to all the Apostles and Bishops in the person of Peter. Also Peter was never Bishop of Rome

[@adothariman966]

@1Peter 3:15 The Scripture says that all Apostles hold the power to bind and loose, and that the New Jerusalem has twelve gates with the names of the twelve Apostles You're talking like a Protestant. The Church Fathers know the Scripture. Not you

[@adothariman966]

@1Peter 3:15 In the person of Peter all the Apostles receive equal authority, as has been taught by Sts. Jerome and Hilary. You are reading your doctrines into the Bible, much as the Protestants do Yes Peter was chosen to be leader of the Church. However Peter wasn't even the first head of the Church and the first person to occupy Christ's throne on earth. James of Jerusalem was that person And lastly, Peter was never Bishop of Rome. As testified by St. Gregory the Great, himself a Bishop of Rome

[@chucksmith4624]

@@adothariman966*PETER THE FIRST POPE REBUTTAL TO PROTESTANTS & DOUG BATCHELOR **kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5WVpKKme9Gpq5o* Here's the breakdown on subjects and time for the video 0;00 *The Death of Peter in Rome from Scripture* 7:19 *The Church of Rome in Scripture* 27:19 *Peter means Rock* 41:22 *Get Behind me Satan from Mt.**16:22* 48:31 *Who is Chief and Who is the Greatest* 57:03 *Do Pope's or the Church over rule scripture?* 59:57 *Augustine on Peter and the Keys to the Kingdom* 1:03.12 *Why Popes Don't Marry like Peter* 1:07.22 Answers to Acts 21:8 and Gal. 2:9 1:19.31 Answers to Acts 12:17, Acts 13:15, Acts 15:13 1:27.51 *Proof of Apostolic Succession*

[@adothariman966]

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

[@marypinakat8594]

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

[@alexchristopher221]

The word 'Pope' comes from the Latin pāpa, which means “father.” Peter may or may not have been called "Father" or "Holy Father" but he was certainly regarded as a father to the universal Church. The papacy has Jewish roots. “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father. - Isaiah 22, 15-23

[@chucksmith4624]

*PETER THE FIRST POPE REBUTTAL TO PROTESTANTS & DOUG BATCHELOR **kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5WVpKKme9Gpq5o* Here's the breakdown on subjects and time for the video 0;00 *The Death of Peter in Rome from Scripture* 7:19 *The Church of Rome in Scripture* 27:19 *Peter means Rock* 41:22 *Get Behind me Satan from Mt.**16:22* 48:31 *Who is Chief and Who is the Greatest* 57:03 *Do Pope's or the Church over rule scripture?* 59:57 *Augustine on Peter and the Keys to the Kingdom* 1:03.12 *Why Popes Don't Marry like Peter* 1:07.22 Answers to Acts 21:8 and Gal. 2:9 1:19.31 Answers to Acts 12:17, Acts 13:15, Acts 15:13 1:27.51 *Proof of Apostolic Succession*