Talk:Saint Peter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject European Microstates / Vatican City (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Vatican City (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Christianity / Saints / Catholicism / Eastern / Oriental / Syriac / Anglicanism / Lutheranism / Latter Day Saints (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Syriac Christianity work group (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

Peter's nationality[edit]

I believe St Peter should appear under the following Wiki category page:

So the following text should be added to the St Peter page: Category:Jewish popes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minneapolisite (talkcontribs) 17:55, 15 March 2013‎

On earlier debate[edit]

//"First Bishop"

The description "first bishop" needs a source; piping it to "Apostolic succession" is insufficient.

Further, I am unaware of any tradition of Saint Peter as the "first bishop" ordained. It is certainly not listed in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article cited: [Saint Peter]. --Zfish118 (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Apostolic succession is the wrong terminology for Petrine or Papal succession. Apostolic succession is a different, specific doctrine of one bishop ordaining another in an unbroken line from the apostles. All bishops have it. Furthermore, Peter is not really the "first bishop", since all the apostles were ordained at the same time during the Last Supper. He is first among equals, yes, but to say he is "first bishop" seems to be according a chronological attribute to him that is not asserted and not necessarily true. I have corrected the errors in the article. I also replaced the hardcoded reference to Pope Francis with Francis. Elizium23 (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Reading through the article text, it seems that "first bishop of Rome" is the accurate label to be used in the lede. Elizium23 (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
He was the first bishop...of Rome (Pope=Bishop of Rome).-- (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
This is somewhat of an "old church" (Catholic/Lutheran/Anglican/etc) discussion. IMO, non-denominational Christian churches don't see Peter as a bishop of anything since they do not have this leadership structure. I would suggest the term's removal, but I understand that I'm probably in the minority so I'm just making this a comment for the record and not really a suggestion. Ckruschke (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Ckruschke//

All right, where do I start? The source for Peter being the very first Bishop is the Gospel narrative itself. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus tells Simon, Son of John that he is now Peter, thereby ordaining him the first Bishop.

It is true that all Bishops have Apostolic Succession. All Bishops have Apostolic Succession because all Bishops are traceable, via the other Apostles, to Peter. Despite what Elizium23 said (and this is where (s)he went wrong, everything before that being true), however, Peter was ordained by Jesus before the Last Supper, as noted in Matthew 16:18.

Last but not least, since the Bishop of Rome is Pope by definition (and that's only because Peter founded the Diocese), saying first Bishop of Rome and first Pope is redundant. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

A citation is needed to back up your assertion that the "Rock narrative" was Peter's ordination, and not at the Last Supper. Elizium23 (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Citation: Matthew 16:19.
"I give you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven."
That's the very next verse! In what possible interpretation of this passage is Jesus not investing Peter with authority? That's all Ordination is, even today. It is an investment of Sacramental authority. Even though the Bible does not use the word "Ordination" ("Χειροτονία" in Greek, apparently), it does give the very definition of what would make this the very first Ordination within the New Covenant, in that Jesus gives Peter the authority to consecrate.
Not the point: I never even used the exact phrase "Rock narrative."
Point: The Last Supper was not the first investment of Sacramental authority. Jesus having picked out Peter and given him the Keys was. The Last Supper added to that authority, specifically with the establishment of the Eucharist, but Peter became the first Bishop before that. All Bishops do have Apostolic Succession as you pointed out, but only because they are traceable to Peter via the other Apostles. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The Mysterious El Willstro - With all due respect, and I honestly mean that, the above "proof" that you state are simply your interpretations of the script. Jesus did not "ordain" Peter as a Bishop in general any more than he was the first Bishop of Rome or that some type of sacremental authority was invested in Peter over the other apostles at or before the Last Supper. From what denominational or pastoral source have you been taught/told this because I've never heard it in either my on again/off again church upbringing or my non-denominational adult church going. Clearly I'm not saying only I can be right as obviously this is just my POV and OR, but as far as I'm concerned your above discussion is also your POV and OR as your only "source" is your interpretation of the Biblical text.
Not being difficult or belittling your take, but you state the above with such conviction as essentially basic fact and I've never heard this so I'm a little confused. As I said back in February, this is in my POV an old Church viewpoint that is based on nothing else but tradition. Ckruschke (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
This would take a little more time and legwork, but for a Church document other than the Bible, I could track down the prescribed formula for what a Bishop says during an Ordination Mass, right before he ordains a man as a Priest or Bishop. This particular Bible passage, Matthew 16:18-19, is always read during the Ordination Mass, either by the Bishop himself or by someone delegated by him. It is read at every Ordination, with the implication that it describes the very first Ordination.
Also, it's not that Peter's authority over the Sacraments was greater/"over" (more efficacious) than that of the other 11 Apostles. (After all, a Host is still consecrated whether it was consecrated by the Pope himself or by some unknown Priest in some remote church on a wooded hilltop.) Rather, Peter's Ordination was the source of that of the other Apostles, and through them that of all Bishops even today and then forever in the future. For an analogy, imagine that a single 1st Candle is lit by a match, and then all other candles are lit either by that candle initially or by each other later. They all have the same flame, but they all derived it from the initial candle. Well that initial candle would be Peter, if the flame stands for the Sacramental powers of a Bishop. Jesus is the match that started the flame, Peter the founding candle, and the other Apostles the first 11 subsequent candles lit by the initial candle. (Peter also consecrated as Bishops 4 men who had not known Jesus personally. These would be Paul, Mark, Linus, and Hyrogoras.) So, I think you might have misunderstood what I actually said there.
Anyway, let's track down that prescribed formula, around which Bishops' sermons at the Ordination Mass are built. The story of Peter's Ordination by Jesus is part of every Ordination Mass for a reason. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Bible passages and ordination formulae aren't "reliable sources" in the meaning used by Wikipedia. You need a good academic work, some sort of history of the early church or something like that. Do you know how to access Google Books? Do a search there and see what turns up. PiCo (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Looked it up myself. Seems Peter wasn't bishop of Rome after all - here's Raymond Brown, a Catholic historian, calling it an "anachronistic idea". I found another source that says there were no bishops at all in 70 AD. PiCo (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Most historians won't use "bishop" (let alone Pope) until later, but will accept that Peter was a leader of some sort, and probably regarded as the main one. Some formula such as "a leader of the earliest Christians, and traditionally recognised as the first Bishop of Rome" is best. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Johnbod above. He was called apostol by the others, while he lived. Bishop is not a function that existed then. But don't forget that in the early Chistian Church people were pretty equal. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. 17 If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them. John 13:16, for example. Also Luk. 6:40. and Joh. 15:20. And may more examples. Hafspajen (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC).
PiCo, is that the same Raymond Brown who taught at a Protestant Seminary and called into question the Virgin Incarnation of Jesus? If so, how does that make him a reliable source (in any sense) concerning the Church's Doctrines, let alone the Church's Doctrines regarding Peter? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Johnbod and Hafspajen, a Bishop is not a specific "function" in the sense of an administrative office, and until that misunderstanding is clarified this conversation is only going to run in circles. On the contrary, Bishopry/Episcopate is a level of Ordination, namely the one who has the power to bestow validly an Ordination on someone else. If Peter had the ability to Ordain, that made him a Bishop regardless of what specific administrative positions did or did not exist at the time. (And if Jesus singled him out and gave him the Keys, the Authority to Ordain, as the Gospel states, that makes him the very first Bishop.)
Bishops nowadays are indeed associated, for the most part, with administration of a Diocese. However, the Choir Bishops of the Early Church were still Bishops even though they functioned as Pastors of individual Parishes/Congregations. Most Choir Bishops outside the 5 major centers of Early Christianity (Rome, Byzantium later renamed Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch) were initially not part of any Diocese to speak of, and this fact of the very early Early Church is the relatively unstructured or "equal" Church you are talking about, but nevertheless even the most remote of Choir Bishops had the Authority to Ordain which had been given to them along with their own Ordination. Thus satisfying the actual definition of "Bishop." The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

First Bishop of Rome[edit]

I removed a sentence in the "Catholic" subsection here that incorrectly identified that it is a Catholic teaching that Saint Peter was the first "Bishop of Rome"; it is taught however, that the Bishops of Rome are successors to the Saint Peter's role as chief of the Apostle's ministry. The Bishop of Rome, however, is a distinct set of responsibilities that may have been first given to one of Peter's successors, not necessarily to Peter himself. There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Catholic Church that touches upon this. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It is correctly identified as a Catholic teaching, which is documented in the Catholic Encyclopedia entry which is a cited source in the text already there. I will point out that the Catholic Encyclopedia uses Patristic documents to explicate the teaching. These are all part of Sacred Tradition. Elizium23 (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Elizium23 (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am making a very subtle point here, and spurious accusations of vandalism are not appreciated and serve only distract and harass. The Encyclopedia asserts that it is matter of historical record that Saint Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (It is not, however, difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well attested as to be historically certain). It does not rely on the teaching authority of the church to make this claim, thus is not a belief, although the claim is by no means contradicted by any Catholic belief. I do not object to an alternative phrasing to that effect. The matter of whether the Church specifically teaches that Saint Peter was the first Bishop of Rome is in fact subject to a relevant discussion at Talk:Catholic Church; if a reliable source making this specific and narrow claim is found, then the original may be restored if appropriate.
This is indeed a teaching of the Church, as I have said, the citations made are all contained within Sacred Tradition. Patristic writings document the teachings of the Church and the fact that Peter is first Bishop of Rome is no less a teaching because it is a historical fact. Many Church teachings are historical facts. Such as the Resurrection, the Assumption, the institution of the priesthood, etc. Elizium23 (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
[1] "In like manner Prosper, Cassiodorus, Isidorus Hispalensis, and Bede expressly state in their Chronicles or historical works that S. Peter held the Roman See for twenty-five years. Amongst the Fathers and writers of the first centuries not one teaches the contrary. ... And since their whole object was to prove what was true and genuine apostolic doctrine from due order of legitimate succession, it would have been beside their purpose to set forth how many years each of the Pontiffs successively held the Roman See." Elizium23 (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, it is strongly HISTORICALLY historically supported, and not contradicted. It is generally accepted as historical fact, but not [necessarily] mandated taught as a belief. The Catechism, for instance, uses only the language of "successor to Peter", without explicitly naming Peter a bishop or even Pope ("CCC, 882".  . --Zfish118 (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems implicit to me. "in communion with the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter and head of the college". You succeed to an office, and the office in question is Bishop of Rome. Elizium23 (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Until recently, I assumed this was the Church's teaching on the matter, too. The discussion I referenced opened my eyes to the possibility that the church's teaching is much narrower; this makes sense, because there is conflicting evidence as to whether there was a single "Diocese of Rome" early on, or several independent missionary churches. The church might accept as plausible, for instance, that Saint Peter acted as a missionary in Rome, and appointed his successor as Chief Apostle while in Rome, and Saint Peter's heir was eventually chosen when the churches were formally consolidated into a diocese. The issue is not whether Peter was a bishop in Rome, but reflects the historical uncertainty as to when he or his successors became Bishop of Rome. The church would appear to defer to history in the matter. --Zfish118 (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The article Bishop appears to explain the the term was not well defined in Peter's time. Describing him as Bishop of Rome is revisionist/anachronistic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference here. One, what the Catholic Church's teaching and the other is the History of Church that claims there were no specific leades in the early church. Actually Saint Paul was probably more of a a leader for the early church, but that doesn't change the fact what the Catholic Church's teaching is. They still claim that Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and if mentioned like this it is all fine. They have the right to claim, belive and teach what they want. Hafspajen (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The Catholic Church has the right to claim whatever it wants; however, no one has produced a church declaration that states that the Church claims this. The Catholic Encyclopedia is an American publication independent of the church, although explicitly pro-church, and one that attempts to defend a general Catholic point of view. I encourage both of you to contribute to the discussion of this matter at talk:Catholic Church#POV debate. This is only a single sentence here, but numerous articles are effected. --Zfish118 (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
If you say - correct :The Catholic Church claims ... this and that - than it is just a claim. Than it is WP:NPOVHafspajen (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, holy smoke, noticed that discussion. I don't know if I have the energy to got involved. Zfish118 - you need some kind of second oppinion on that by uninvolved parties. My suggestion is: Take it to the WP: Dispute resolution. Hafspajen (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong Association with Gabriel[edit]

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:,_Royal_Doors.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014[edit]

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. (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)

Missing Source![edit]

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)