Church History - was Peter Bishop of Rome?

[Mystophilus]

Look, are we getting anywhere with this, really?

Going back over my responses, they sound snappish and increasingly sarcastic, and careless about details, all of which are bad signs that I am letting stress interfere with communication.

Therefore, I would like to sum up what I want to say here. If you want to do likewise, go ahead. If you think that there are parts which we can usefully continue to discuss, please specify those.

Summary:
I do not see just cause to flatly state that επισκοπος must have been used in the C1st for Peter in Rome. I also do not see just cause to claim that Peter was not the individual leader of the church at Rome. The linguistic issue is entirely distinct from the ecclesiological one.

The historical record clearly shows that the Latin West and the Greek East, divided by language and by culture and by sheer geographical distance, viewed the Councils and the proceedings of the Councils differently, with the East opting at a very early date (possibly even right out of Acts 15) for a conciliar ecclesiology rather than a centralised one. In the West, however, a growing centralisation to Rome is visible, although not in a simply linear fashion: different provinces placed different amounts of dependence upon Rome (i.e. reserved different amounts of independence unto themselves), especially under particularly passive (Zosimus) or active (Leo) popes. Since the two ends held such divergent beliefs about authority within the Church for so long, the ultimate schism was most probably inevitable.

 

[Abu]

Mystophilus #30
The historical record clearly shows that the Latin West and the Greek East, divided by language and by culture and by sheer geographical distance, viewed the Councils and the proceedings of the Councils differently, with the East opting at a very early date (possibly even right out of Acts 15) for a conciliar ecclesiology rather than a centralised one.

Hardly.

As Dr Warren Carroll has pointed out in The Building of Christendom, 1987, (Vol. 2 of A History of Christendom), p 365, note 80: “There can be no reasonable doubt that St Athanasius as Patriarch of Alexandria and St John Chrysostom as Patriarch of Constantinople fully recognised and accepted Papal primacy (Chapters 1 & 3).”

Note that the early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1) This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

Arnold Lunn in Now I See, Sheed & Ward, 1955) could quote from the Anglican Vicar of Oddington, Rev S Herbert Scott, that St Peter and his successors were recognised as the supreme judges in matters of faith by a long succession of great Eastern saints, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Denys, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others.

Scott quotes from the Graeco-Slav Liturgy at the Council of Nicea addressing the Pope, St Sylvester, who was not himself present: “…thou didst appear as a pillar of fire, snatching the faithful from Egyptian error (sc. Arius) and continually leading them with unerring teachings to divine light.” [Op. cit. Lunn, p 218-9]. Sir Arnold remarks that “This unwilling tribute from the Greek Church of today to the “unerring teaching” of the Roman Pope is most impressive.”

Note that the early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on this schism in the Church of Corinth

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).​

Abu #38 1/2/15 9:53 am
Mystophilus #27
Linus, Anacletus, and Clement……While there is no reasonable doubt that they were leaders of the church in Rome, Evaristus may well have been the first one to be called “bishop” in his own time.
It is noteworthy that Pope St Clement, the third bishop of Rome, in the First Epistle of Clement (1 Clem) speaks of Peter and Paul as of “our own generation” and wrote to the disorderly in the Church at Corinth by reminding them that the Apostles ordained bishops and deacons warning that “the effort to depose men from the episcopacy” is no “small sin.” He stresses that “The Apostles are from Christ….they appointed their first fruits – after having tested them through the Spirit – to be the bishops and deacons of the future believers.”

“Ancient testimonies, the Didache, the Letter of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, to the Pauline community of Philippi, and in letters attributed to Barnabas and Diognetus….cover the evidence in the early Church from the time of the Apostles up to about 150 A.D. They demonstrate that by the turn of the first century all Churches for which there is information were led by officials called bishops, presbyters, and deacons.”
The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p77-8].

 

[Mystophilus]

Note that the early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church.

Only if you mean in primacy of honour. As for governance, that has already been addressed here.

 

[Frank22]

Throughout the Old Testament, God changes the names of various persons, and with this name-change is accompanied a special purpose, mission, or function for that person. For example, in Genesis 17:5, God changes Abram’s name to Abraham, meaning father of a multitude, because Abraham was promised that his descendants would “number many in many nations.” In John 1:42, Christ supplants Simon’s name with Peter, which means rock. Later, in Matthew 16:13-19, Christ declaims the following to Peter:

“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Although the above passage has no dearth of context, the language that Christ borrows from plays particular importance in arriving at an impartial exegesis of this scripture. As many Protestant scholars have noted, the phraseology employed derives from Isaiah 22, which speaks of the deposition and supersession of Shebna from his office as chief steward; that is to say, as one who “holds the keys of the house of David,” and who has the authority to “open, and none shall shut,” and to “shut, and none shall open.” Thus, we see that Christ gave Peter the same authority given to Eliakim in Isaiah 22; that is, to preside over the Church, issue decrees concerning doctrinal teachings, and the like.

Further, we see that Christ gave Peter the promise that the Church would be founded on him at some point in the future. This fact has tremendous ramifications, for scripture says of the Church the following:

“[Y]ou may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” 1st Timothy 3:15

Consequently, we see that Peter is the source of truth, for that is an attribute of the Church, and the Church is founded upon him. What’s more, Christ commands us to look to the rock to find spiritual rectitude; yet, Peter’s time on this Earth ended in the seventh decade of the first century. Yet, it is beyond doubt that Christ supplanted Simon’s name with rock, and he expressly states that his Church would be founded on the rock in Matthew 16. Ergo, the only consistent conclusion is that the authority Christ imputed to Peter is passed on to his successors. This belief is also supported by the aforementioned passage in Isaiah 22, which states that the authority given to Eliakim by God will be passed on to his “offspring and offshoots.” As reams of patrologists have affirmed, and as I will demonstrate in another tract concerning the historical basis for the papacy, this view is substantiated by both the historical record of the early Church and the writings of the Church Fathers.

In John 21:15-17, the following interaction takes place between Jesus and Peter:

“When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?’
He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’
He said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’
A second time he said to him, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’
He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’
He said to him, ‘Tend my sheep.’
He said to him the third time, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’
Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, ‘Do you love me?’ And he said to him, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.’
Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep.’”

The structure and wordplay of this passage is quite telling, especially as it’s conveyed in the Greek language. In his first response to Peter, Jesus says to him “boskó my lambs,” then to “poimainó my sheep,” and finally to “boskó my sheep.” The word boskó in this sense means to provide spiritual nourishment, and Christ uses this word twice; the first, in reference to lambs, and the second to sheep. Unless one ignores the deliberate wordage of this passage, the implication is quite clear; that is that Peter is to act as shepherd, i.e., to provide spiritual nourishment to all Christians, including both the laity (lambs) and the clergy (sheep). Christ also uses a second word, namely poimainó, which means to care for, supervise, govern, guard, rule, tend to, and et cetera. Hence, we see John 21 buttressing the authoritative position given to Peter in Matthew 16 in addition to expanding upon that office to include the duty of shepherding all Christians.

In his first epistle to various persecuted churches in Anatolia, Peter exercises the exhortation given to him by Christ in John 21 by providing spiritual nourishment to both the laity and clergy; e.g., his epistle begins, “To the Elders and the Flock.” Moreover, one can see Peter exercising the authority conferred to him by Christ in Matthew 16 at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:6-11, where at he declared that gentiles do not need to be circumcised to enter the Church.

To summarize, the papacy is established by the passages John 21 and Matthew 16, a patent exegesis of which is available when it is contextualized in terms of Isaiah 22. Peter is seen exercising the authority imputed to him by Christ in the aforementioned passages in his first epistle and at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

 

[Eruorto]

It’s been great seeing this discussion, everyone. I’ve gotten lots of useful information.

 

[Ignatius]

*Hi, all. This started as a question about a specific anti-Catholic preacher named Charlie Campbell *: “Most scholars, outside of the Catholic Church,” he says, “reject the popular teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, that the church at Rome was established by Christ Himself.”

Charlie Campbel is simply dishonest, The Catholic Church does NOT teach that Jesus Christ himself established a church in Rome.

 

[steve_b]

The parts which were approved by the Council are the parts which the Council says were approved: the decree against Nestorius passed by the Council, the canons passed by the Council, the contents of the Council’s letter to Coelestine, and the items specifically referred to in those parts as approved (e.g., Cyril’s letters). Nothing else is identified by the Council as having been approved, merely as having happened.

And Coelestine’s letter to the council? Yes
And what is said about Coelestine? Yes

one can’t deny this is the understanding of the chair of Peter…
M:

Okay, that is fair: Eusebius just says “all Asia” (3.24.9), and others in that list include events in which the lines of fractured communion run across provinces. Nonetheless, the historical record very frequently demonstrates the inability of the bishops of Rome to force, and even sometimes to coax, compliance with their will.

It did between Rome and Asia, creating one of the many situations in which diocese A was in communion with diocese B but not with diocese C, whilst B and C were in communion. It was not as complete a schism as some of the later ones, but it was the reason why the later ones happened.

For those in the East who didn’t celebrate Easter on Sunday were very few. And that number dwindled to zero very soon after the issue was made. So that didn’t become the issue you make it out to be.

AND, don’t obfuscate this issue. Those in Asia Minor who did NOT celebrate Easter on Sunday were not in union with ALL their fellow Easterners either, who DID celebrate Easter on Sunday. The issue you’re describing involved a small group of Easterners who ultimately conformed to everyone else
M:

Actually, no: you cited examples, none of which included the term being used for Peter in his own time; you then conjectured that it was used for him. Conjecture is not proof.

in Peter’s time, is the whole point of all the biblical references made in this post. #25 ,

It’s not conjecture.
M:

Yes, he does: 2 apostles, whom he describes as working together, and then a succession of 12 bishops, whom he presents as a distinct group from the apostles. He draws no connection between that succession and Peter in particular. This does not support your argument.

You’re ignoring the scriptural points brought up in #25
M:

I am curious, however, as to why you think that this is such a big deal. We have no evidence of “pope” being used at that time either, but of it later being used for non-Romans (e.g., Cyprian of Carthage and Athanasius of Alexandria), and so the description of Peter as “the first pope” is also anachronistic.

It was first made a big deal in the upper room after the last supper, when the apostles got in an argument over who is the greatest among THEM.

the argument was NOT over first among equals, but who is the GREATEST among THEM.

And who was it that started the argument? Satan …sifting them like wheat.

#30

 

[steve_b]

Only if you mean in primacy of honour. As for governance, that has already been addressed here.

Primacy (**not **primacy of honor) was challanged by the apostles and settled by Jesus at the last supper. #30

Peter’s primacy is directly answered and confirmed by Jesus, so the argument is over.

 

[Mystophilus]

so the argument is over.

Sorry, Steve, but the argument ended right here. If you want to continue it without me, go right ahead.

 

[steve_b]

Sorry, Steve, but the argument ended right here.

hardly
M:

If you want to continue it without me, go right ahead.

Fine with me.

I’ll add this #385 for anyone who wishes to comment

 

[Abu]

More history that establishes Peter as Bishop of Rome:
‘For subsequent events we can scarcely find a better authority than that of St. Irenaeus, who was taught by St. Polycarp who, in turn, had been a disciple of St. John the Apostle. St. Irenaeus wrote his great work “Adversus Haereses” during the time of Pope Eleutherius, who held office 177A.D. to 189 A.D. and whom Irenaeus described as the “twelfth from the Apostles.” In Bk. 3, sect. 2, St. Irenaeus expressly says: “The blessed Apostles, after founding and building up of the Church (in Rome), handed over to Linus the office of Bishop. Paul mentions this Linus in his epistles to Timothy (2 Tim., 4:21).” Irenaeus then lists the successive Bishops of Rome as Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter and Eleutherius, adding: “It is in this order and in this line of succession that the tradition has come down in the Church from the time of the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth has come down to our own day.”

‘Eusebius, in his “History of the Church”, Book 5, c. 58, says that Pope Victor, the successor of Eleutherius, “was the thirteenth Bishop of Rome after Peter.” ’
[See DR RUMBLE “QUESTIONS PEOPLE ASK”, Chevalier Books, 1972].

 

[simspt]

Most scholarship today, including that of Catholic scholars, indicates that Peter did not write the epistles associated with him, (see NAB intro to 1 & 2 Peter), nor that he was ever considered “bishop” of Rome by his contemporaries. The Church existed in Rome before Peter ever arrived there, and episcopal leadership would have already been in place. This does not take away from Peter’s role as chief Apostle. Keep in mind that in the early church bishops were chosen from among the faithful and were leaders of that local church. Consider what would happen if the Pope came to your parish and diocese. He may overshadow your bishop and parish priest for awhile, but he would not be taking over for anyone. I see Peter as having that type of role during his time in Rome.

Modern academia many times undermines cherished positions from earlier eras of ecclesiastical opinion. Not just Protestant but Roman Catholic scholars are also not immune from this habit. Scholar’s bias and hostility toward theologically driven historical research has to be taken into account. Are we really to prefer the musings of modern scholars over Irenaeus, Ignatius, Origen, Ambrose, and Augustine?

 

[Eruorto]

Aaand, I’m annoyed because I spent a ton of time transcribing Campbell’s video, only to - just today - find a transcript on his website. /facepalm

Anyway, I want to thank everyone again for their contributions to this thread. I’ve certainly learned a lot (and have been lurking on the forums lately). You all are a great resource. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Ignatius]

Next up: “Most scholars date the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church at 590 A.D…” My question: Where’s this date from? Haven’t heard this before.

Actually this brings into question the scholarship of those so called “scholars” since the terh “Roman Catholic” wasn’t even invented, and as a epithet at that, in the 16th century.

 

[Abu]

Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
ROMAN CATHOLICISM. The faith, worship, and practice of all Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome, whom they acknowledge as the Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the Church founded by Christ. The terms “Roman Church” and “Roman Catholic Church” date from at least the early Middle Ages, but the stress on these terms became prominent after the Protestant Reformation. The reason was to emphasize the distinctive quality of being not only a Christian, because baptized, but of being a Catholic, because in communion with the Pope.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

 

[steve_b]

Aaand, I’m annoyed because I spent a ton of time transcribing Campbell’s video, only to - just today - find a transcript on his website. /facepalm

Anyway, I want to thank everyone again for their contributions to this thread. I’ve certainly learned a lot (and have been lurking on the forums lately). You all are a great resource. Thanks for sharing.

May I suggest, spend your time here not places like that.

 

[Eruorto]

Oh, I definitely spend more time here. I was looking for something else and ended up back there.