Do Catholics cherry-pick/read-meaning-into Scripture?

[Memaw]

No. Peter appointed a bishop of Antioch. St. Peter established the church at Antioch and was the first bishop there. This see was established before he went to Rome. St. Peter appointed the second bishop of Antioch, Euodius and Ignatius of Antioch was the third bishop of the city. His Holiness John X of Antioch was elected Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East on December 17, 2012. Eastern Orthodox consider His Holiness Patriarch John X to be a successor of St. Peter, since the church at Antioch was founded before Rome, and the second bishop of Antioch was appointed by St. Peter.
Who was the first bishop of Rome after St. Peter. Most sources say Linus, but the Annuario Pontificio (Libreria Editrice Vaticana 2008 ISBN 978-88-209-8021-4), p. 7 says that Clement was pope Clement from 68-76, making him the first bishop of Rome after Peter, but it also mentions the possibility that he was pope from 92-99.

I believe I said there was not a Bishop of ANY town until After Peter was made Pope by Jesus Christ before He accended into Heaven. It doesn’t matter who was made Bishop of a town by St. Peter, the Papacy still belonged to St. Peter and his successor. The Papacy went where Peter went. The Holy Spirit guides the Church and has for over 2,000 years, whither we agree with HIM or not. God Bless, Memaw

 

[bmullins]

No. Peter appointed a bishop of Antioch.

It’s funny you should mention Antioch. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about the primacy of Rome in the early 2nd century. If the early Antioch church considered itself the seat of authority why would the Bishop of Antioch, student of the Apostle John, be writing letters that affirm the bishop of Rome as the protos(first) of all Bishops?

Either way this is light years from the original statement of “do catholics cherry pick.” Getting way off topic with the constant straw men and segways.

 

[Tomdstone]

It’s funny you should mention Antioch. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about the primacy of Rome in the early 2nd century. If the early Antioch church considered itself the seat of authority why would the Bishop of Antioch, student of the Apostle John, be writing letters that affirm the bishop of Rome as the protos(first) of all Bishops?

Either way this is light years from the original statement of “do catholics cherry pick.” Getting way off topic with the constant straw men and segways.

In 1886, Dr. William P. Killen said that the Ignatian epistle to the Romans, and other Ignatian epistles as well, were forgeries and not authentic, but were written in the third century. The question is whether or not it is “cherry picking” to say that Matthew 16:18 implies that the Bishop of Rome is the infallible head of the whole Church because the Eastern Church interprets this passage to imply that others, such as the Bishop of Antioch, appointed by St. Peter, can be considered to be a successor to St. Peter?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

In 1886, Dr. William P. Killen said that the Ignatian epistle to the Romans, and other Ignatian epistles as well, were forgeries and not authentic, but were written in the third century. The question is whether or not it is “cherry picking” to say that Matthew 16:18 implies that the Bishop of Rome is the infallible head of the whole Church because the Eastern Church interprets this passage to imply that others, such as the Bishop of Antioch, appointed by St. Peter, can be considered to be a successor to St. Peter?

You are impressed with the Eastern Church’s opinion? Why not research into the opinion of the entire Eastern Church antecedent to the Great Schism. The Eastern Church was of the same opinion as the whole Catholic Church regarding the primacy of the Roman See.

 

[Tomdstone]

You are impressed with the Eastern Church’s opinion? Why not research into the opinion of the entire Eastern Church antecedent to the Great Schism. The Eastern Church was of the same opinion as the whole Catholic Church regarding the primacy of the Roman See.

I thought that the Eastern Orthodox understanding of primacy was somewhat different from the Roman Catholic POV. For example, John Zizioulas,in “Primacy in the Church: An Orthodox Approach,” Eastern Churches Journal 5, no. 2 (Summer 1998), pp. 7-20 says that the universal primacy of the Church of Rome would mean in the first instance that the Bishop of Rome will be in cooperation on all matters pertaining to the Church as a whole with the existing patriarchs and other heads of autocephalous churches. … He would be the President of all heads of churches and the spokesman of the entire Church once the decisions announced are the result of consensus.

 

[phil19034]

But according to some Orthodox, since the bishop of Antioch is the successor of Peter, it is he who should be feeding the sheep. The Bible does not claim that the successor of Peter will be the bishop of Rome.

If that was true, Constantiople wouldn’t have pushed its influence on Antioch.

If any of this was true, you wouldn’t see paintings in the Hagia Sophia that depict one of the Byzantine Emperors (and his wife) as the right and left hand of Christ.

Constantinople always felt that the head of the Church should be where the Emperor was. While Rome, and the whole Church until the Schism, believed it resided with the man who took over the office Peter was in when he was killed.

Also, if Antioch was the true leader, you wouldn’t have St Igantus of Antioch referring to the Bishop of Rome.

God Bless

 

[Tomdstone]

Also, if Antioch was the true leader, you wouldn’t have St Igantus of Antioch referring to the Bishop of Rome.

Which document of St. Ignatius of Antioch are you referring to?

 

[Abu]

Tomdstone #7
Non-Catholics, including Eastern Orthodox, might say that the verse in Matthew 16:18: On this rock I will build my Church, etc., has been misinterpreted by Roman Catholics.

How very strange as Jesus was crystal clear on building MY CHURCH, and which, by eliminating the words of Jesus, enable thousands of differing sects all saying something different.

#22
Where does Scripture say that the successor of Peter will be in Rome and not in Antioch, where Peter was first?
#34
But according to some Orthodox, since the bishop of Antioch is the successor of Peter, it is he who should be feeding the sheep. The Bible does not claim that the successor of Peter will be the bishop of Rome.

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).”

"Eusebius wrote in *The Chronicle *(Ad An Dom 42), that Peter, after establishing the Church in Antioch, went to Rome where he remained as Bishop of Rome for 25 years. We know from other early writings that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome in 67 A.D. That date, minus 25 years would put him in Rome in the year 42, during the reign of Claudius. Again, this charge can be dismissed for the same reasons given already, that the Church was forced to practice the faith in an underground situation in order to avoid persecution. The Romans had a policy of hunting down and persecuting all of the Apostles.”

As Dr Warren H Carroll in A History of Christendom, The Foundation of Christendom Vol 1, testifies, in The Pontificate of St Peter, 30-67:
30-37 head of the Church in Jerusalem
42-49 first sojourn in Rome
49-50 in Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council
62-67 third sojourn in Rome; canonical Epistles of Peter; Mark with Peter in Rome
67 martyrdom in Rome and burial at the Vatican

St. Peter ends his first Epistle with the words, “The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so doth my son, Mark.” All reputable scholars admit that the first Christians called pagan Rome Babylon on account of its vices. St. Peter, therefore, was writing from Rome.

It is simple history that St. Peter went to Rome about the year 43 A.D., went back to Jerusalem after a few years for a short time, and then returned to Rome until his death, save for very short absences. He died about the year 67, during the reign of Nero. Papias wrote, about 140 A.D., “Peter came and first by his salutary preaching of the Gospel and by his keys opened in the city of Rome the gates of the heavenly kingdom.” Lanciani, the eminent archaeologist, wrote, “The presence of St. Peter in Rome is a fact demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt by purely monumental evidence. [See “The Pope” in Vol 1]
Radio Replies | Catholic Apologetics Online | Rumble & Carthy
radioreplies.info/site-se…+in+Rome+&db=1

 

[Tomdstone]

"Eusebius wrote in *The Chronicle *(Ad An Dom 42), that Peter, after establishing the Church in Antioch, went to Rome where he remained as Bishop of Rome for 25 years.]

So you agree that Peter went to Antioch and established a Church there, before he went to Rome?

 

[mommy_k]

Excuse me?? I cannot believe this is an accurate statement.

It’s true. Simple answer: if you put 4 people in seperate rooms with the same scipture-you would most likely never get the same interpretation because sometimes people inject their own personal slant to scripture.

The Catholic church is constant, and the Tradition and Authority of interpretation of scriptures is part of this…

Here is a link:
catholic-defense.com/bible.htm

 

[BlackBeard54]

So you agree that Peter went to Antioch and established a Church there, before he went to Rome?

No one is contending that Peter did not establish a Church in Antioch. The bone of contention here is with WHOM do the Keys of the Kingdom and the Office of Peter reside, You are seeming to propose that Peter “carried the Keys” to Antioch, and left them with that Church. You may as well insist that he left the leadership with the first Church in Jerusalem. That would make more sense than Antioch.

What makes the most sense is that the Office was entrusted to the man, and that he passed on that Office in Rome, where he spent more time, was martyred, and where the center of the known world, for all intents and purposes, had been established.

You are trying to use the location to contend the succession.

 

[Tomdstone]

No one is contending that Peter did not establish a Church in Antioch. The bone of contention here is with WHOM do the Keys of the Kingdom and the Office of Peter reside, You are seeming to propose that Peter “carried the Keys” to Antioch, and left them with that Church. You may as well insist that he left the leadership with the first Church in Jerusalem. That would make more sense than Antioch.

What makes the most sense is that the Office was entrusted to the man, and that he passed on that Office in Rome, where he spent more time, was martyred, and where the center of the known world, for all intents and purposes, had been established.

You are trying to use the location to contend the succession.

Do you believe in apostolic succession? If so, what apostle founded the church at Antioch and do you agree with the apostolic succession {from Peter} which is claimed by the Orthodox bishop of Antioch?

 

[Abu]

Tomdstone #49
So you agree that Peter went to Antioch and established a Church there, before he went to Rome?
#52
If so, what apostle founded the church at Antioch and do you agree with the apostolic succession {from Peter} which is claimed by the Orthodox bishop of Antioch?

Apostolic Succession flows from the mandate given by Christ to Peter and expressed clearly in the Apostolic College at the Council of Jerusalem at which Peter as head of the Church stated the charter of the Church’s universality, giving his decision.

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

From the N.T. we know that Christ promised that His Church would last until the end of time, which would mean the constitutional permanence of the office of head of His Church which He had bestowed on Peter alone. (Mt 16:18).

Refer to early Church history: e.g. St Irenaeus, taught by St Polycarp who had been a disciple of St John the Apostle, wrote in his great work Adversus Haereses in Bk 3, Sect 2 “The blessed Apostles, after founding and building up the Church (in Rome), handed over to Linus the office of Bishop.”

Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

The denial of this reality for multitudinous self-expression is what has caused the errors that followed. There is no other “Apostolic Succession” to lead Christ’s Church.

 

[BlackBeard54]

Do you believe in apostolic succession? If so, what apostle founded the church at Antioch and do you agree with the apostolic succession {from Peter} which is claimed by the Orthodox bishop of Antioch?

Of course I do, but we are specifically addressing the succession of the Office given to Peter. All Bishops, regardless of their location, are Apostolic Successors. But the Office that Peter held has always been understood to reside in the Bishop of Rome.

Do you think Peter just left that office in Antioch? Seeing that it appears you would agree in the Primacy of Peter, did he abdicate that Office in Antioch, or did it remain vested in him when he went to Rome?

 

[Tomdstone]

There is no other “Apostolic Succession” to lead Christ’s Church.

The Orthodox bishop of Antioch owes apostolic succession from Peter, since St. Peter was in Antioch and appointed the bishop of Antioch, Evodius to follow him. Did St. Peter appoint a bishop of Rome?

 

[BlackBeard54]

The Orthodox bishop of Antioch owes apostolic succession from Peter, since St. Peter was in Antioch and appointed the bishop of Antioch, Evodius to follow him. Did St. Peter appoint a bishop of Rome?

Linus was the second Pope. However, Peter did not have to be the one who appointed him. In fact, Popes are elected after the previous one has died, so none of them have a (temporal) voice in their successor.

 

[Tomdstone]

Linus was the second Pope. However, Peter did not have to be the one who appointed him. In fact, Popes are elected after the previous one has died, so none of them have a (temporal) voice in their successor.

First of all, it is clear and uncontested that Peter appointed the bishop of Antioch, Evodius to follow him, and that the Orthodox bishops or Patriarchs of Antioch enjoy apostolic succession from St. Peter. Secondly, how do you explain the fact that the Annuario Pontificio (Libreria Editrice Vaticana 2008 ISBN 978-88-209-8021-4), p. 7 says that Clement was pope from 68-76, making him the first bishop of Rome after Peter? Wouldn’t that mean that Clement was the second Roman Pope?

 

[Abu]

radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=42&n=374
Again, how could St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, and who died in the year 202, say that all churches were subject to, and must agree with the Church at Rome, because St. Peter had founded the Church there, and the Bishops of that city were his lawful successors, beginning with Linus?

The Council of Ephesus in 431, embracing all Bishops and not even held at Rome, decreed, “No one can doubt, indeed it is known to all ages, that Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles and Foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Christ our Redeemer, and that to this day and always he lives in his successors exercising judgment.”

Implicitly St. Peter claimed his right by being the first to announce the Gospel after Pentecost, by conducting the election of Matthias as an Apostle in place of Judas, by presiding at the Council of Jerusalem, etc. St. Paul wrote to the Galatians L, 18, that he went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and stayed there fifteen days with him. Why to Peter rather than to any other of the Apostles? And why does he add that, having gone to Jerusalem, he also saw James? He does not say that he went to see such Apostles as were at Jerusalem, or that he went to see James, and also happened to see Peter whilst there.

Papias wrote, about 140 A.D., “Peter came and first by his salutary preaching of the Gospel and by his keys opened in the city of Rome the gates of the heavenly kingdom.” Lanciani, the eminent archaeologist, wrote, “The presence of St. Peter in Rome is a fact demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt by purely monumental evidence.”

St. Peter ends his first Epistle with the words, “The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so doth my son, Mark.” All reputable scholars admit that the first Christians called pagan Rome Babylon on account of its vices. St. Peter, therefore, was writing from Rome.

St. Peter having been head of the Apostles, and having died as Bishop of Rome is Christ’s chosen to Head His Church.

 

[Abu]

Tomdstone #57
how do you explain the fact that the Annuario Pontificio (Libreria Editrice Vaticana 2008 ISBN 978-88-209-8021-4), p. 7 says that Clement was pope from 68-76, making him the first bishop of Rome after Peter? Wouldn’t that mean that Clement was the second Roman Pope?

The first Popes after St Peter are:
St Linus 67-76
St Anacletus 76-88
St Clement 88-97
See: A Catechism of the Catholic Church, Fr Robert J Fox, Franciscan Herald Press, 1979.

See: The Catholic Encyclopaedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
1.St. Peter (32-67)
2.St. Linus (67-76)
3.St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4.St. Clement I (88-97)

 

[ericc]

There are some contradictory teachings in the Bible.

You mean 1+1 <>2 type of contradiction or the viewpoint of one is different from the viewpoint of another because of telling the same story from another angle or different time or different audience or different message(but non-contradictory) intended? Or my interpretation is different from that of another? Or insufficient information to have everything tied up nicely in a tidy package? Only the first one is a proper contradiction.