2 Bishops of Rome at the same time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter J1Priest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

J1Priest

Guest
Hello,

I am engaged in a debate with an “ex-Catholic” (from www.excatholicsforchrist.com) and in the long e-mails he has made a point that there were two Bishops of Rome at the time of Peter.

Me: Or if I am once saved and always saved why would Peter, the first Pope (bishop of Rome) [he/james ends quotation to refute the Papacy]
“ex-Catholic” James: Do you really want to go there? I mean two bishops in Rome at the same time? And remember, what is a bishop? A bishop is an elder. And that is all an elder was, that is until Rome gave him slippers, cone hat and made him “supreme pontiff.”

Anyone has any say of this?

And even if it was true, it wouldn’t conclude anything at all, would it?
Just as before a Bishop retires there is already another Bishop… coadjuntor I think they are called…

thanks!

God bless
 
:whacky: Coadjutors are merely auxiliary bishops that have been assigned to another bishop for administrative purposes. The only real difference between coadjustors and auxiliary bishops is that the former have automatic succession once the See is vacant (the Bishop dies, is reassigned or retires). In terms of ecclesiastical authority, it resides totally with him that sits on the cathedra of the See. No exceptions.

It’s possible that your opponent will eventually bring up the issue of the consecration of Linus in Rome mentioned in the Pseudo-Clementine Apostolic Constitutions. If so, the fact of the matter is that Linus and Clement both were auxiliary bishops (bearing in mind that this was pagan Rome, which had quite a number of converted Jews and Romans, and that such individuals were necessary for the administration of sacraments, as one could not simply go freely about the work of a priest.)
 
MilesXpisti said:
:whacky: Coadjutors are merely auxiliary bishops that have been assigned to another bishop for administrative purposes. The only real difference between coadjustors and auxiliary bishops is that the former have automatic succession once the See is vacant (the Bishop dies, is reassigned or retires). In terms of ecclesiastical authority, it resides totally with him that sits on the cathedra of the See. No exceptions.

It’s possible that your opponent will eventually bring up the issue of the consecration of Linus in Rome mentioned in the Pseudo-Clementine Apostolic Constitutions. If so, the fact of the matter is that Linus and Clement both were auxiliary bishops (bearing in mind that this was pagan Rome, which had quite a number of converted Jews and Romans, and that such individuals were necessary for the administration of sacraments, as one could not simply go freely about the work of a priest.)
Click to expand...
Thank you.
I still have to see what the person responds before I should put out any defense or exposition of the truth.

Pray for me, though, that I may not fall into the temptation of argue just to argue, but rather to present the truth for the person to be convinced of the greatness of Christ and His Church.
 
I think Paul and Peter were in rome at the same time. Paul mission was to gentiles while Peter’s mission was to Jews. It is possible that others could have had different missions too, thus two bishops in the same church or area would not be a problem at all.
 
Isn’t the important point that Rome was given authority-- not who was at Rome?
 
I can’t tell from the scanty info in your friends original assertion, but he may be making an oblique reference to the times where there were multiple claimants to the See of Peter. Ask him to clarify, and then you’ll be able to answer him more efectively.

(Sometimes people throw out charges like this as conversation stoppers – they don’t really know what they are talkiing about and they are depending on the ignorance of Catholics to not not either. That’s why you need to ask them details.)

Suffice to say, the operative point in this area is that at the times these things happened there were not two Popes – one was the true, validly elected Pope and the other was merely a claimant.

For more info, I recommend this article:

Pope Fiction, by Patrick Madrid
envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.2/mar_apr98_coverstory.html

Which comes from an excellent and comprehensive book by the same name.
 
FightingFat said:
Isn’t the important point that Rome was given authority-- not who was at Rome?
Click to expand...
No this is not correct - The important point is who is validly in the Chair of Peter, independent of the phyical location.
 
Hey guys,
The guy said that he wouldn’t e-mail anymore… So I don’t know what he was talking about…

I guess I’m too stuborn for him. And he did say that from what I’m showing, I am not even saved… :-/
haha.

Keep him in your prayers, and me too.

God bless
 
FightingFat said:
So specifically we are talking about the Petrine ministry?
Click to expand...
The office of the Holy Father was vested in the person of St. Peter and his successors, not in the city where he ended up. For example, if St. Peter had remained in Antioch and not built up the Church in Rome with St. Paul, it might just be that we might be marking the succession of the Antiochene See.
 
I think the opponent was speaking about Peter and Paul there at the same time as “Bishops” (which would at least prove he believed in Peter being at Rome!)
Or maybe about the whole issue with what the first response to this thread was
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top