Re: Pope Peter II
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavProtestant churches don't recognize the Pope, period, I don't think it would matter to them what the Catholics called him.
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).
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.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavI 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.
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.
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_GavI think Catholics would be opposed to the idea of a Pope Peter II as well, wouldn't you think?
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 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.
Re: Pope Peter II
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.