www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Peter is most likely not a pope

I can prove it very easily, if not it atleast have better hold of an argument. Basically Gospel of Mark is the earliest gospel in terms of dating in 70 AD Gospelf of Matthew came after it along side Luke and John. The thing is Jesus never states here "You are Peter and upon this rock" this is only from my knowledge in Matthew. In mark it just ends in "I say you are Christ" and then it just goes away.

The thing is, church tradition states that Mark(the writer of Gospel of Mark) wrote of what Peter told him. And even if we say traditions saved it later on, that still will sit still most likely.

There is however a problem. Peter or Xephas in Aramaic had an important role, but here is the problem. If Peter was the one to become a pope, then why exclude the part? I know favoritism is not a thing to boast... but i am pretty sure this counts more as a matter of furthering the cause,

So this is why in my view. Peter is not according to catholic tradition a pope. I would be amazed to see any catholics refute this.

But just wondering your views on it?

Kretsei:

Christ is in our midst!!

Welcome to the forum.

Your contention that St. Mark's Gospel is the first is contradicted by St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Constantinople (634 to 638). According to the introduction to the commentary of Blessed Theophylact of Ochrid of the Gospel of Matthew, written in the late 11th century and carried in the introductory sections of the liturgical Gospel books of both the Greek and Slavic Orthodox Churches, the first Gospel was written by St. Matthew in Hebrew and later translated into Greek.

[The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to Matthew, by Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Ochrid and Bulgaria, translated from the original Greek by Fr. Christopher Stade, Chrysostom Press, 2008.]

Bob

Thank you and may god be with you.

But i didn't say Luke's gospel was first. I said Mark's gospel is first. I know this because people date it the earliest to 70 AD while the later ones as Matthew is later than Mark. Luke and John is in the correct written order though.

Just because Matthew is first that doesn't mean that it was intended to be the first ever written (dont know if that makes sense, maybe because it felt like a completion)

Here is a wikipedia link on it. If you disagree then i'd like to hear what you think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels#Theories

"It was probably written c.AD 66–70, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Composition

"Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Setting_and_date

You have to remeber that not all the evangelists knew Peter personally, so of course it wouldn't be included in each gospel. While Christ may not have been talking about papal infallibility, he was establishing Peter to lead his church when He left.

Thats not entirely accurate. According to tradition, Gospel of Mark is written by Mark, but Peter is the one who directs what Mark is writing. Whether one believes they didnt preserve it would be more like claiming they didnt take good care of the written word, which i dont think people would say though.

Why exclude the "You are Peter" part? There can be many explanations:
1) no need for Peter to repeat what was already known;
2) Peter doesn't want to seem full of himself;
3) Since Mark is writing under Peter's direction, it would seem redundant
4) The Liturgy celebrated by the faith Communities already conveyed the hierarchy and structure

There are more, but these come to mind immediately.

In addition, your speculation is worded badly. Even if "you are Peter" was never stated, how would that make Peter not a "pope" or "patriarch" - meaning "Father" of the faith Community?

Everyone already agrees that the current structure and organization of the Papacy were developed, so if that is your argument, it is a strawman.

Kretsei:

Christ is in our midst!!

I related to you a historical note that has been included in Orthodox Gospel books used in liturgical worship. Modern biblical scholarship doesn't even take note of this because it has been bent on trying to piece together manuscripts that the Church has not used.

The Commentary that I mentioned is only recently available in English and it is the first time it has been available to a Western audience. It is, however, something used and taken as authentic by Eastern Christians for almost the last thousand years.

You might reconsider your position if you obtained a copy and considered the claim made there. The patriarch in question--Sophronius--is much closer to the sources of when the Scriptures were written than scholars of today or wikipedia.

Bob