|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saint Peter article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This page was previously nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, please review the logs of any previous moves and/or any discussions listed below.
|Saint Peter has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.|
I believe St Peter should appear under the following Wiki category page:
Strong Association with Gabriel
By induction from the Scriptures and the common unauthorized narratives, Gabriel has a strong association with St. Peter, and visa versa. I can't cite anything, unfortunately, but consider that it is common belief (you may have heard) that Gabriel guards the pearly gates, the Gates of Heaven, and Peter, in juxtaposition, holds the Keys of Heaven, given to him by Jesus, and in the common narrative prospective inductees always meet St. Peter at the Gates of Heaven. idk, maybe they're both there... maybe they share the work in shifts, or maybe they're the same person and an artist formerly of the band Genesis. Regardless, unless its some sacred secret, someone with references maybe ought to write a section with some indunction and conjecture concerning the existence of a strong association with St. Peter. --- me again... here is something interesting: http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archangel_Gabriel_and_St._Peter,_Royal_Doors.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
The article is presented largely from the Roman Catholic perspective. It claims that the protestant view of St. Peter disagrees about the interpretation of Matthew 16:18, which is the foundation for claiming the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome a.k.a. the pope, over all of Christianity, naming the pope "the Vicar of Christ on Earth."
"Protestants Protestants typically disagree with Roman Catholics centers on the meaning of Jesus telling Peter: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church..." in Matthew 16:18."
While protestant denominations which reject Apostolic Succession (which declares that the 12 Apostles named in the Bible were the first 12 Bishops, and appointed their successors, a chain of successors comes to the present in all duly consecrated Bishops) may hold a view similar to the one stated, it should be clarified that the view of the worldwide Anglican Communion, as well as that of all of the Orthodox and Apostolic denominations do hold that Peter was the head of the Apostles, but they differ as to whether Peter established the Papacy at all, and if so, was it in Rome? Peter himself was the Bishop of Antioch, not the Bishop of Rome, he was martyred in Rome (c.f., if the Queen of England died on a visit to the US, that would not make her the Queen of the US). The early Christian Church -- which depends squarely on Apostolic succession and which Anglican, Orthodox and Apostolic faiths all claim to maintain, without the Pope or Cardinals -- did not have a supreme Bishop, although they did discuss the possible need for one (e.g., the First Council of Nicea). They had Archbishops who had authority over other Bishops, and they were originally in Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria. There was much discussion among early Bishops (2nd - 8th Centuries) as to possibly appointing one Archbishop to have unifying control over all the Bishops of the church, but there was NEVER the required Cannonical vote. The principle contenders were the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople, as those were the seats of the East and West Roman Empire, respectively, and the Bishop of Jerusalem laid claim as that was where Christ died and was resurrected, and the Bishop of Antioch had a claim as well, as that was St. Peter's actual Diocese (Holy See). Rome simply asserted it's supremacy, starting with a forged document called "The Donation of Constantine" wherein the Roman Emporer, Constantine, was said to have given the entire Empire to the Bishop of Rome, thus establishing his supremacy. When that document was acknowledged as a forgery, Rome asserted its supremacy based on the "Petrine Doctrine" -- that Peter was martyred in Rome, giving it supremacy. Other Bishops and Archbishops simply asserted that it had to be agreed upon in a Synod (conference of Bishops) -- as had been done in Nicea to establish which books would be included in the New Testament, and all the canonical laws which still govern these churches -- and the vote would have to be unanimous to ensure the Holy Spirit was making the decision. For several centuries the question lingered, but was never voted upon, but Rome assumed it's supremacy nevertheless. This ultimately led to the "Great Schism" between East and West, where the Archbishop (Patriarch) of Constantinople we excommunicated by the Archbishop (Pope) of Rome, and then vice-versa -- of course no bishop may excommunicate another bishop. The same dispute led to the Antidisestablishment movement, which was the chief reason the Anglican Church, aka (at the time) the Church of England separated from Rome -- Henry VII's divorce may have been an impetus, but the sentiment was long there among clergy and nobility as well. Henry VIII was granted a divorce by a Papal Legate, but when the Holy Roman Emperor threatened the Pope, the Pope replied "the knives of the Holy Roman Emperor are closer than the knives of England" and withdrew consent for the divorce, which catalyzed the schism along with ensuring the success of the reformation under Luther and Calvin. At the time of their separation, the Anglican Church had valid Bishops, who have the authority to create more Bishops, thus current Bishops are all valid under Apostolic Succession. The same is true for all Orthodox and Apostolic faiths. Later the Episcopal Church of Scotland separated from Rome, taking their valid Bishops, and after that the Church of Utrecht separated from Rome, with their valid Bishops, creating the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht. Most of these churches acknowledge the validity of Apostolic Succession of the other Churches, and the Roman Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox and Utrecht Bishops, and they are moving towards recognizing Anglican and Apostolic Bishops.
Long story short, the target article has well-represented the case for considering Peter to be the first Pope, and that thereby the present Bishop of Rome is the Supreme Bishop of Christianity, or the Pope, but it has not at all acknowledged a 2000 year old debate that the Bishop of Rome is NOT the duly elected Supreme Pontiff; even if Peter could be considered the first Pope, making the See of Rome the Primal See would have had to be agreed upon by all Bishops in an election, and it never was. The Bishop of Rome in the third century did not have the authority to determine on his own which books would constitute the New Testament or what would be canonical law, nor did he have the authority to declare himself the head of the church. Complicating matters is that the Council of Nicea (where the New Testament and canonical law were voted into existence unanimously by all Bishops of the age), was called together by Constantine, who had begun as a Pagan Emperor of Rome, but had taken his Greek mother's faith, Christianity, moved to Byzantium, which he renamed Constantinople, established Constantinople as the new capitol of the Eastern Roman Empire (leaving Rome with half it's prior empire, the Western Empire) and at the same time established Christianity as the faith of both Empires, and later appointing separate successors, Eastern Emperor (Rome) and Western Emperor (Constantinople), (titles which Constantine originally held both for himself). So while Constantine was the Roman Emperor during his lifetime, it was his intent that Constantinople become the center of Christianity, he did not expect it to take root in Western Europe as it did; but Christianity was already deeply established in Greece, indeed the New Testament was written in Greek. Thus Constantine sough to settle the question of which Bishop would be the Head of all Bishops, but he failed to have the question settled, though he succeed in establishing the New Testament and canonical law to govern the church. There is NO universally agreed upon answer to the question, and indeed there is implicit acknowledgment of this in the fact that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Bishops who do not answer to the Pope.
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. This is highly confusing. What exactly are you requesting be changed? Cannolis (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a quote with an abbreviated citation, lacking a full one in the "References" section. Could someone help me identify it?
- Wilken, p. 281, quote: "Some (Christian communities) had been founded by Peter, the disciple Jesus designated as the founder of his church. ... Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome" --Zfish118 (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
AD — BC
The first paragraph contains the text: "Saint Peter (Latin: Petrus, Greek: Πέτρος Petros, Syriac/Aramaic: ܫܸܡܥܘܿܢ ܟܹ݁ܐܦ݂ܵܐ, Shemayon Keppa, Hebrew: שמעון בר יונה Shim'on Bar Yona ; died c. 64 AD), also known as Simon Peter".
The line "Claims of direct blood lineage from Simon Peter among the old population of Antioch existed in the 1st century" is confusing. Does the source in question really indicate a first century claim of descent? Seems perhaps a typo as that would be awfully early for anyone to make a big deal out of being descended from him. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)