Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is a question aimed mainly at Protestants, however everyone is ofcourse invited to share their opinion.

Papal Protocol has meant no-one has ever taken upon the name Peter when they become Pope, the explanation being that its out of respect for the First Pope.

However, Protestant Churches do not recognize St. Peter as ever being Pope, so should a man be elected Pope and choose his name as Peter, would they object to him being styled Peter II? (Which is what he would be named).

Also, would anyone else out there say that he isn't Peter II and should be Peter I?

Ill vote but not comment till later dude...need to think on it..lol..but just to clarify my position my vote would most certainly be other response..and will be...no doubt...lol

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
This is a question aimed mainly at Protestants, however everyone is ofcourse invited to share their opinion.

Papal Protocol has meant no-one has ever taken upon the name Peter when they become Pope, the explanation being that its out of respect for the First Pope.

However, Protestant Churches do not recognize St. Peter as ever being Pope, so should a man be elected Pope and choose his name as Peter, would they object to him being styled Peter II? (Which is what he would be named).

Also, would anyone else out there say that he isn't Peter II and should be Peter I?

Well if the next pope took the name Peter; we'd have a lot more to worry about than his name. It would be the fulfillment of the prophesy of St. Malachai.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Well if the next pope took the name Peter; we'd have a lot more to worry about than his name. It would be the fulfillment of the prophesy of St. Malachai.

I know to what you refer and wasn't really wanting the thread to go in that direction...atleast not yet...

Besides, Peter Romanus might not have the papal name Peter...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I know to what you refer and wasn't really wanting the thread to go in that direction...atleast not yet...

Besides, Peter Romanus might not have the papal name Peter...

Perhaps, but it is the only pope which does have a specific name associated to him; so I assume he would take Peter II.

Just my personal opinion.

But for a protestant, every pope is invalid, so why bother with the naming. To them they are all false.

I would not care one way or the other.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Perhaps, but it is the only pope which does have a specific name associated to him; so I assume he would take Peter II.

Just my personal opinion.

But for a protestant, every pope is invalid, so why bother with the naming. To them they are all false.

That may be, but they can be polite and accept the chosen names- however I don't think it would be the same with Peter...

A similar thing happened in Scotland when Queen Elizabeth II came to the throne, the Scots complained because there has never been a Queen Elizabeth of Scotland before, thus she should be Elizabeth I...

I don't know. I'll check it out and come back to post later on.

Actually, Peter's name as a Pope has never been chosen out of respect to the first Pope. Why would it be used now?

We should close the possibility by just refusing that a Pope is named Peter something... especially if people beleive the prophesy of St. Malachai.

Originally posted by Mandos
Actually, Peter's name as a Pope has never been chosen out of respect to the first Pope. Why would it be used now?

We should close the possibility by just refusing that a Pope is named Peter something... especially if people beleive the prophesy of St. Malachai.

We can still ask hypothetical questions, assuming there is a Peter. Would protestants recognize him as Peter II?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
We can still ask hypothetical questions, assuming there is a Peter. Would protestants recognize him as Peter II?

Probably not, since they don't beleive that Peter was a Pope. The Christian catholics however, will refuse the name Peter. In the end, there would probably be an agreement on the title Peter 2. I don't know why, I just feel this way.

I didn't think Protestants recognized the authority of the pope...

But yes, I can see how, to them, it might be wrong to call him "II" in protestant eyes, but not more wrong than the pope is inherently to them...

Hey! Grand_Moff_Gav What if he called himself Peter Paul?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
This is a question aimed mainly at Protestants, however everyone is ofcourse invited to share their opinion.

Papal Protocol has meant no-one has ever taken upon the name Peter when they become Pope, the explanation being that its out of respect for the First Pope.

However, Protestant Churches do not recognize St. Peter as ever being Pope, so should a man be elected Pope and choose his name as Peter, would they object to him being styled Peter II? (Which is what he would be named).

Also, would anyone else out there say that he isn't Peter II and should be Peter I? I can't see why a Protestant would care. Then again, I can't imagine most Catholics would care either.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I can't see why a Protestant would care. Then again, I can't imagine most Catholics would care either.

Most Catholics would agree that Peter II would be an applicable name, since Peter was the first pope.

The only concern that catholics have is that if the pope after Benedict chooses that name; for a private revelation by St. Malachai predicted that the next pope would take the name Petrus Romanus (Peter of Rome) and during his reign the apocalypse would occur. So that would be the only Catholic concern.

And Gav, don't expect too much from protestants when it comes to popes; they tend to have a bad history

Why would Protestant's care?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why would Protestant's care?

Because they get quite hot under the color at the idea of St. Peter being Pope.

Pope Peter..........hahahahahaha

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Most Catholics would agree that Peter II would be an applicable name, since Peter was the first pope.

The only concern that catholics have is that if the pope after Benedict chooses that name; for a private revelation by St. Malachai predicted that the next pope would take the name Petrus Romanus (Peter of Rome) and during his reign the apocalypse would occur. So that would be the only Catholic concern. I was actually commenting on how many catholics don't care that much.

.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
However, Protestant Churches do not recognize St. Peter as ever being Pope, so should a man be elected Pope and choose his name as Peter, would they object to him being styled Peter II? (Which is what he would be named). Protestant churches don't recognize the Pope, period, I don't think it would matter to them what the Catholics called him.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Protestant churches don't recognize the Pope, period, I don't think it would matter to them what the Catholics called him.

Yet they still call Pope Benedict XVI by that name, they don't call him Joseph Ratzinger, of course you could say this is just being polite. However, if they recognized a Pope as Peter II they are recognizing that St. Peter was a Pope also- which raises doctrinal questions.

No, they'd just be recognizing that the Catholics think Peter was the first Pope.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, they'd just be recognizing that the Catholics think Peter was the first Pope.

Would they all see it that way though, thats my question...Im really waiting for JIA or WOTW to answer...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Yet they still call Pope Benedict XVI by that name, they don't call him Joseph Ratzinger, of course you could say this is just being polite. However, if they recognized a Pope as Peter II they are recognizing that St. Peter was a Pope also- which raises doctrinal questions. I think calling him Benedict XVI is more out of convenience than anything else. Protestants don't recognize the authority of the Pope, so I doubt it really matters to them what Catholics call him.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I think calling him Benedict XVI is more out of convenience than anything else. Protestants don't recognize the authority of the Pope, so I doubt it really matters to them what Catholics call him.

No, but it matters what they call him.

I ask because I was discussing it with some Church Leaders at a local evangelical church dinner, and they were quite opposed to the idea of a Peter II.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No, but it matters what they call him.

I ask because I was discussing it with some Church Leaders at a local evangelical church dinner, and they were quite opposed to the idea of a Peter II. I think Catholics would be opposed to the idea of a Pope Peter II as well, wouldn't you think?

Originally posted by Strangelove
I think Catholics would be opposed to the idea of a Pope Peter II as well, wouldn't you think?

I think some might be abit nervous what with all the legends that surround the name but I don't think most would really care...

However, for a protestant acknowledging a Pope Peter II therefore implies the acknowledgment of a Pope Peter I, and many protestant churches are very much against any notion that Peter was Pope.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think some might be abit nervous what with all the legends that surround the name but I don't think most would really care...

However, for a protestant acknowledging a Pope Peter II therefore implies the acknowledgment of a Pope Peter I, and many protestant churches are very much against any notion that Peter was Pope.

You are assuming that the name of the pope has any authority as far as Protestants are concerned. They would simply see it as yet another attempt of the Catholic Church to legitimise its self.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
This is a question aimed mainly at Protestants, however everyone is ofcourse invited to share their opinion.

Papal Protocol has meant no-one has ever taken upon the name Peter when they become Pope, the explanation being that its out of respect for the First Pope.

However, Protestant Churches do not recognize St. Peter as ever being Pope, so should a man be elected Pope and choose his name as Peter, would they object to him being styled Peter II? (Which is what he would be named).

Also, would anyone else out there say that he isn't Peter II and should be Peter I?

First, Pope is a reference to the Bishop of Rome or the head of the Catholic Church.

Peter was an Apostle and I haven't seen a Biblical reference where he was cited as a Bishop. The Bishops are claimed to be his successors.

Given that the Catholic Church did not technically exist at the time of Peter's death, I fail to see how he could be considered Pope.

Clement's letter, while historically verified as his is self serving. If the Bishops were truly to succeed the Apostles why had the apostles continued to replace themselves as they died, why not begin this succession prior to the last of themselves being killed or die?

I believe that the Bishops were given the charge to protect the Church and as the Apostles died without replacing themselves the Bishops took this to imply a degree of authority that did not truly exist.

IMO, Peter the Apostle was not a Pope. Thus I would not recognize a new Pope as Peter II.

But then I am LDS, Mormon, and we diverge from mainstream Christianity on many points, this included.

Every Pope is considered to be the successor of Peter, the rock on which the Catholic Church is built. And back before the schism of 1054, there was no church other than the Catholic or "universal" church. So whether was officially the Bishop of Rome or not can be debatable, but the fact that he was the first leader of the Church pretty much makes him the first Pope.

I love Pope Peter.

You can call him Peter Piper the manic axe murderer from the gutters of babylon the 1st for all I care. The Pope has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity, god or anything positive in this world. imo.