I am a Protestant I don't think Protestant Christianity is true?

[cooterhein]

Swiss can respond for himself. I might at least clarify, however, that there is “unity” and “unity”, and not all unities or disunities are the same. The Catholic Church fully recognizes the validity of Orthodox sacraments, orders and apostolic succession. In that sense, at least, there is “unity”. From the Catholic standpoint, it isn’t a sharp division like the one between, say, Catholicism and Methodism. From the Orthodox standpoint, (and it varies) there is admittedly less “unity” than there is from the Catholic standpoint.

I apologize if I’m being obtuse, but we may think about this in different ways. See if you can follow me in how I’m thinking about this, and I’ll try and see it from your point of view as well.

You talk about different kinds of unity and disunity. Catholic unity is one thing; its hierarchy is more sharply vertical than that of either Orthodoxy or Catholicism back in the first millennium when it included both the East and the West. I don’t think a more sharply vertical shape necessarily implies better unity, but perhaps we’ll have to agree to disagree on how we make value-based judgments of different kinds of unity.

You also mention different kinds of disunity, though. You mentioned the disunity of the Great Schism (hugely significant but admittedly not all that sharp), and you also make note of a sharper type of disunity along with one example. You cite the disunity between, say, Catholicism and Methodism. I can cite a few more examples, if you like. Say, the disunity between Catholicism and the Anglican Communion. Say, the disunity between Catholicism and Lutheranism- that was quite sharp, if I do say so. Say, the disunity between Catholicism and Calvinism. Say, the disunity between Catholicism and the Anabaptists. Say, the disunity between Catholicism and the Waldensians.

That’s a lot of sharp disunity involving Catholicism and some other thing. Now, it seems to me that less sharp disunity is something you see with the EOC- the Great Schism is blunt disunity, so to speak, and they are just as involved in that as you are. Their organization is more conciliar and less vertical, but that’s hardly disunity; at best, you can say a more vertical hierarchy is an improvement on their unity (and the unity enjoyed by Catholics in the first millennium). I would disagree, but we’ll have to live with that. Now, there are some churches within Eastern Orthodoxy whose autonomy, semi-autonomy, or autocephalous status is questionable or in the process of getting worked out. If that counts as disunity, it’s about as un-sharp as you can get.

For me, once I look at all the different types of unity and disunity that the CC and the EO are respectively involved in, it seems that they share a less-sharp disunity between themselves while maintaining independent situations with a variety of churches, assemblies, and communions with which they have different kinds of disunity. Using broad strokes here, it seems to me that the overall situation is one in which the West has an awful lot of sharp disunity that is quite intractable, whereas the East tends to range from less-sharp disunity to questionable or disputed unity that is less intractable and may very well be repaired in time.

I’m sure you have a very different perspective. For me, though, I see a lot of sharp disunity in the West- most of it involving people like you and people like me. I’m a part of it; maybe that’s why I see it so readily. And in the East, I don’t see much in the way of sharp disunity. There may be some things I don’t know that would affect my perspective- particularly in areas that don’t involve me either directly or indirectly- but I am working on this to the best of my ability and that is what I see. Perhaps you see something different, though; maybe you can help me make “the best of my ability” better than what it is.

 

[cooterhein]

Yes, that’s correct; I don’t really have anything at stake and I’m not trying to reach a conclusion on who the OTC is. I’m not much for Christian primitivism, either, for what it’s worth- although I understand the appeal and have interacted with the idea on a personal level. Still, I do like to be involved and informed and somewhat aware of Christian history prior to the Reformation. It is important, I need to know about it, and it does involve me to some extent- although I have to stop well short of bogarting the ECFs and claiming them as Protestants. That’s just silly. Nevertheless, someone who purports to advocate for some kind of meaningful unity among all Christians in all the world and through all ages should make an honest effort at something better than complete ignorance of a good majority of Christianity in the world today and a better majority of Christian history.

In a word, though, it’s comparatively academic. I would say that’s fair.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I apologize if I’m being obtuse, but we may think about this in different ways. See if you can follow me in how I’m thinking about this, and I’ll try and see it from your point of view as well.

You talk about different kinds of unity and disunity. Catholic unity is one thing; its hierarchy is more sharply vertical than that of either Orthodoxy or Catholicism back in the first millennium when it included both the East and the West. I don’t think a more sharply vertical shape necessarily implies better unity, but perhaps we’ll have to agree to disagree on how we make value-based judgments of different kinds of unity.

You also mention different kinds of disunity, though. You mentioned the disunity of the Great Schism (hugely significant but admittedly not all that sharp), and you also make note of a sharper type of disunity along with one example. You cite the disunity between, say, Catholicism and Methodism. I can cite a few more examples, if you like. Say, the disunity between Catholicism and the Anglican Communion. Say, the disunity between Catholicism and Lutheranism- that was quite sharp, if I do say so. Say, the disunity between Catholicism and Calvinism. Say, the disunity between Catholicism and the Anabaptists. Say, the disunity between Catholicism and the Waldensians.

That’s a lot of sharp disunity involving Catholicism and some other thing. Now, it seems to me that less sharp disunity is something you see with the EOC- the Great Schism is blunt disunity, so to speak, and they are just as involved in that as you are. Their organization is more conciliar and less vertical, but that’s hardly disunity; at best, you can say a more vertical hierarchy is an improvement on their unity (and the unity enjoyed by Catholics in the first millennium). I would disagree, but we’ll have to live with that. Now, there are some churches within Eastern Orthodoxy whose autonomy, semi-autonomy, or autocephalous status is questionable or in the process of getting worked out. If that counts as disunity, it’s about as un-sharp as you can get.

For me, once I look at all the different types of unity and disunity that the CC and the EO are respectively involved in, it seems that they share a less-sharp disunity between themselves while maintaining independent situations with a variety of churches, assemblies, and communions with which they have different kinds of disunity. Using broad strokes here, it seems to me that the overall situation is one in which the West has an awful lot of sharp disunity that is quite intractable, whereas the East tends to range from less-sharp disunity to questionable or disputed unity that is less intractable and may very well be repaired in time.

I’m sure you have a very different perspective. For me, though, I see a lot of sharp disunity in the West- most of it involving people like you and people like me. I’m a part of it; maybe that’s why I see it so readily. And in the East, I don’t see much in the way of sharp disunity. There may be some things I don’t know that would affect my perspective- particularly in areas that don’t involve me either directly or indirectly- but I am working on this to the best of my ability and that is what I see. Perhaps you see something different, though; maybe you can help me make “the best of my ability” better than what it is.

Not being a theologian, I doubt I can help anybody see anything better.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying. If you’re saying there is less disunity between the Catholic Church and the EO than there is, say, between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran churches, I would say that from a Catholic standpoint that’s true. From an EO standpoint, I am not sure it’s true to say that, since at least SOME EO, in particular the monks of Mt. Athos and the Patriarchate of Moscow (the latter constituting most of the EO) would classify Catholicism as little different from Lutheranism. With the Patriarch of Constantinople and those who follow him, it would not be so.

I think it would be correct to say that from the Catholic standpoint there is not a sharp disunity between the EO or OO and the CC, but a very sharp one with the Lutheran churches. It’s more than disunity. It’s complete differentness. Apples and oranges.

That view is not fully shared by all Protestants, to my understanding. I have heard Methodists, for instance, say they are actually part of the same church as are Catholics, and will cite Methodist doctrine to prove it. Some Anglicans are even more ready to say it. But from the Catholic standpoint, it isn’t so. It isn’t a matter of “disunity” in one church, it’s a matter of entirely separate and unrelated churches from the Catholic point of view.

While an individual EO or OO might dispute it, I think there is less unity among some of the EO and OO churches than you seem to think. But it’s of varying sorts. Some of it, is doctrinal, and therefore inherently serious. Some of it is national, and that is also serious, but more potentially tractable. Also, their conciliar nature is as much a barrier to unity as it is an aid to at least a feeling of unity. If your concept of structure is conciliar and you can’t have truly ecumenical councils, and if one tradition accepts councils up to a point but not later while another accepts more of them, then you’re kind of stuck where your particular tradition’s development stopped.

The sharpest disunity, as I understand it, between the CC on one hand and the Orthodox on the other, is that the CC asserts the ability to convene ecumenical councils. The Orthodox are invited to them. Some go in a sort of “observer stautus”, but most don’t. But the CC considers them valid whether the Orthodox are there or not. The Orthodox do not accept that at all.

That is actually a more serious “disunity” than the question how far the Pope’s authority extends, though the Pope’s ability to call ecumenical councils is part of it.

 

[cooterhein]

Not being a theologian, I doubt I can help anybody see anything better.

I bet you can do something. You certainly don’t have to do everything; I’m just as interested in what the Orthodox have to say about the Orthodox. I’m sure the OP has some kind of interest, too…I hope he checks back within the week.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying. If you’re saying there is less disunity between the Catholic Church and the EO than there is, say, between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran churches, I would say that from a Catholic standpoint that’s true. From an EO standpoint, I am not sure it’s true to say that, since at least SOME EO, in particular the monks of Mt. Athos and the Patriarchate of Moscow (the latter constituting most of the EO) would classify Catholicism as little different from Lutheranism. With the Patriarch of Constantinople and those who follow him, it would not be so.

When I look at one disunity as being sharper than another, I’m looking at…a few things.

Excommunication is big and usually the first thing on my mind, departure of bishops is one thing whereas the beginning of something non-apostolic is another, the relative number of people on either side of it is significant, and of course, there’s the body count. Relative distance between one doctrine and another is hard to gage and depends on perspective, but it’s easy to look at a war of religion and say “That was quite sharp. Based on the number of people that died, I would say that’s sharp.”

I think it would be correct to say that from the Catholic standpoint there is not a sharp disunity between the EO or OO and the CC, but a very sharp one with the Lutheran churches. It’s more than disunity. It’s complete differentness. Apples and oranges.

I agree, although I would still call it disunity. I would think that has a lot to do with who retains apostolic succession. The West, for example, includes a group of non-apostolic Christians that’s closing in on 40% of Christianity worldwide. That’s a huge number, some of them can look back on very bloody conflict, and they’re not apostolic which (imo) makes the division more intractable. Apples and oranges, as you say. Whether you continue to call it disunity or not, it’s the last thing you want to see happen.

In the East- as far as I know, at least- there hasn’t been a large number of particularly bloody wars of religion, and while there are some small divisions that include a lack of apostolic succession, the percentage of Christians this accounts for is at or below single digits- not 30+. There may be some fighting I’m not aware of, though, and there may also be some significant excommunications I don’t know anything about. I tend to think this means business was taken care of, but of course that’s not necessarily the case.

It isn’t a matter of “disunity” in one church, it’s a matter of entirely separate and unrelated churches from the Catholic point of view.

Yet even from this perspective, there must have been some progression from where they used to be apples…but now they aren’t. Assuming the Catholic person is an apple.

When I look at the West, I see a big pile of apples and a slightly smaller pile of ex-apples. The ex-apples are all in varying states of disunity with the apples, and this disunity is generally sharper and more intractable than it is with apples and other apples. You can look at plenty of excommunications, a large number of people that continues to grow faster than any apple-pile, and an obscene body-count that hasn’t succeeded in slowing down the process. Do you see something different? Because the biggest difference between looking there and looking at the East- for me, at least- is that I don’t see a big pile of ex-apples over there.

While an individual EO or OO might dispute it, I think there is less unity among some of the EO and OO churches than you seem to think. But it’s of varying sorts. Some of it, is doctrinal, and therefore inherently serious. Some of it is national, and that is also serious, but more potentially tractable. Also, their conciliar nature is as much a barrier to unity as it is an aid to at least a feeling of unity. If your concept of structure is conciliar and you can’t have truly ecumenical councils, and if one tradition accepts councils up to a point but not later while another accepts more of them, then you’re kind of stuck where your particular tradition’s development stopped.

These are some sharpness-related issues that I haven’t fully considered, but I definitely should. Thanks for helping me do that.

I do still think issues like excommunication, raw numbers, and a high body count in religious wars are important, though. And I still don’t definitively know as much about the Eastern situation as I’d like. I’ll definitely look into the issues with ecumenical councils and differences on who accepts what, though. I’ll have to look into this thing a bit more, too- see what the odds are it’ll happen, and if so, how much it would take care of that situation. orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/towards.aspx

The sharpest disunity, as I understand it, between the CC on one hand and the Orthodox on the other, is that the CC asserts the ability to convene ecumenical councils. The Orthodox are invited to them. Some go in a sort of “observer stautus”, but most don’t. But the CC considers them valid whether the Orthodox are there or not. The Orthodox do not accept that at all.

That is actually a more serious “disunity” than the question how far the Pope’s authority extends, though the Pope’s ability to call ecumenical councils is part of it.

At least all the different apples participate in some type of council-convening activity. It’s pretty hard to imagine American Evangelicals doing anything that remotely resembles this.

 

[paul_c]

From my vantage, everything comes down to the credibility of the Church and that can be directly measured by the credibility of the founder.

Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were founded by Christ. This lends great credibility to both and of course, almost all doctrines are the same.

So what about the split. When the Eastern Churches left Rome, about 30% of the Church went into schism. Subsequently, 30% of those Eastern Churches returned to Rome as the Eastern Rite Churches

Its hard to say that Rome is in schism with the East, given those numbers.

 

[Elvis_Guy]

If you are a reader, Rome Sweet Home by Dr. Scott Hahn is excellent. However, you may also watch interviews with fellow Protestants who have converted to the Catholic Church on the Coming Home Network. Some of those interviews are also on EWTN.

YUP! Become Catholic like us cool kids!

 

[cooterhein]

So what about the split. When the Eastern Churches left Rome, about 30% of the Church went into schism. Subsequently, 30% of those Eastern Churches returned to Rome as the Eastern Rite Churches

Its hard to say that Rome is in schism with the East, given those numbers.

Ok, first, the Schism happened when a papal legate walked into the Hagia Sophia during Mass one Sunday morning and served their excommunication documents on the Altar of St. Sopia. How do you look at that and say “when the Eastern churches left Rome”? The nicest thing I can say is that’s not appropriate use of the Altar, and there’s plenty more I could say besides that. The last thing I would say is there go the Eastern churches packing up and leaving.

Second, the numbers you gave are awfully non-specific. Are you counting bishops and ignoring other people? Where do you get these numbers? Also, since the Great Schism was never permanently reversed or undone, I’m afraid you will continue to be in schism until you get that taken care of.

 

[paul_c]

Ok, first, the Schism happened when a papal legate walked into the Hagia Sophia during Mass one Sunday morning and served their excommunication documents on the Altar of St. Sopia. How do you look at that and say “when the Eastern churches left Rome”? The nicest thing I can say is that’s not appropriate use of the Altar, and there’s plenty more I could say besides that. The last thing I would say is there go the Eastern churches packing up and leaving.

No, Only the Michael, Patriarch of Constantinople and his supporters were excommunicated and I agree that mass was the wrong time to do this.

Second, the numbers you gave are awfully non-specific. Are you counting bishops and ignoring other people? Where do you get these numbers? Also, since the Great Schism was never permanently reversed or undone, I’m afraid you will continue to be in schism until you get that taken care of.

i got the numbers from a European history textbook my son had for his high school class. They reflect total population. and here is a look at the numbers today:
adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity.

As for your point that we need to reunite. This is very true. Pope Benedict is making inroads in this regard- he is the Pope of Chrisitian Unity. Making this more difficult of course, is that their is not one orthodox church to work with, there are many.

 

[melekali]

I am a Protestant I don’t think Protestant Christianity is true I am trying to decide between Roman Catholic Christianity and or Eastern Orthodox Christianity how do I decide thank you ?

I would advise you to consider the legacy of all the Popes. None, no matter how much of a scoundrel he was, ever taught officially error as truth. So if you wish to have Roman or another ancient Church, pick one that is in union with the Bishop of Rome who sits in Peter’s seat. There are about 24 Churches that make up the Catholic Communion which all hold to the authentic message.

 

[justingrid]

I am a Protestant I don’t think Protestant Christianity is true I am trying to decide between Roman Catholic Christianity and or Eastern Orthodox Christianity how do I decide thank you ?

I personally considered the same thing in my conversion to the Catholic Church.

Here is a link to my blog where I talk about it a bit…hope it helps…

justingridveritasluxmea.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-i-am-catholic-and-not-orthodox.html

God bless
Justin

 

[mjakemccoy]

All of this talk of disunity is disturbing, and should be to Christians, for Christ said “a house divided cannot stand”. But Greek Orthodoxy and Rome are in real serious discussions right now about working toward full communion. So let’s keep praying for unity. Some history might be important in deciding between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox.

Christ founded his Church on Peter, who was the first bishop of Rome; Pope. When the Roman Empire split between east and west, there were 2 differing capitals, Rome and Constantinople. One spoke greek the other latin, over centuries disagreements grew. But Constantinople always acknowledged submission to Rome until the great schism in 1054. You can join a 1000 year old church, or a 2,000 year old one that Christ founded. Certainly Roman Catholics have our problems, but history should tell us starting new churches doesn’t solve problems. If there’s problems with the Church Christ started who are any of us to start new churches? Our duty is to get to Rome and sort it out. We are called to be one Body, so brothers let’s get back in full communion.

 

[Perplexity]

Some history might be important in deciding between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox. Christ founded his Church on Peter, who was the first bishop of Rome; Pope.

“As for Peter, we have no knowledge at all of when he came to Rome and what he did there before he was martyred. Certainly he was not the original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome in that sense). There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church --a claim not made till the third century. Most likely he did not spend any major time at Rome before 58 when Paul wrote to the Romans, and so it may have been only in the 60s and relatively shortly before his martyrdom that Peter came to the capital.” - Brown, Raymond Edward., and John P. Meier. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. New York: Paulist, 1983. P. 98.

These chaps ^ are/were heavy weight Roman Catholic scholars.

“ALTHOUGH CATHOLIC TRADITION, BEGINNING IN the late second and early third centuries, regards St. Peter as the first bishop of Rome and, therefore, as the first pope, there is no evidence that Peter was involved in the initial establishment of the Christian community in Rome (indeed, what evidence there is would seem to point in the opposite direction) or that he served as Rome’s first bishop…He often shared his position of prominence with James and John…However, there is no evidence that before his death Peter actually served the church of Rome as its first bishop, even though the “fact” is regularly taken for granted by a wide spectrum of Catholics and others.” - McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 25, 29.

 

[Bezant]

I am a Protestant I don’t think Protestant Christianity is true I am trying to decide between Roman Catholic Christianity and or Eastern Orthodox Christianity how do I decide thank you ?

Hello

I say give it a long reflection, because the pro-con arguments for both are pretty compelling.

Take in as many different opinions as you can, but beware of the extreme ones.

Some Catholic criticisms of the Orthodox are rather silly/questionable: they can’t be the True Church because they’re smaller than the Catholic Church, they haven’t had an ecumenical council in 1,000 years, it’s historically obvious that Christ established his Church through Peter’s chain of succession…etc.

Likewise, some Orthodox criticisms I’ve read have been ridiculous: Catholic liturgy has basically become Protestant, Catholics accepted Augustine’s original guilt, the Pope is like a dictator, etc…

 

[jpelham]

…But my main reason for remaining “Latin” (as opposed to even Eastern Catholicism) is that,in blood and bone I AM a Latin; by heritage, by culture, and by inclination.
…Eastern writings just make my mind sort of swirl.

So, while I would not discourage you from seeking your home in Eastern Catholicism, I will caution that it’s, well, very Eastern, and might not quite fit the way your mind works. Westerners, like Easterners, have had centuries of a particular cultural way of looking at things, and we should not discount the effect it has had on us.

You have given a fascinating and informative comparison of of Latin and Orthodox cultures. Thank you, sincerely. But if the judgment is subject to the criteria of heritage and familiarity, the Calvinist could as assuredly vindicate his stand.

Isn’t the issue of unity sufficient, as mentioned above? Christ’s priestly prayer in John 17 made no allowance for refusal. “…that they be one, so the world can know…”

 

[Contarini]

Catholic Church is united. Eastern Orthodox are divided.

Balderdash, unless your criterion for unity is having a Pope.

Explain how Byzantine and Roman Catholics are united but Greek Orthodox and the OCA aren’t?

In both cases, the two jurisdictions overlap geographically, sometimes compete for members (though not officially or as a matter of policy), and yet fully recognize each other as valid and share the sacraments with each other.

If one is united, the other is. If one is divided, the other is.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Only the Catholic Church is headed by Peter and his successors, upon whom the Lord built His Church (Matthew 16:18-19).

That is a point to consider. I would recommend Olivier Clement’s You are Peter for an ecumenical Orthodox perspective which helped persuade me that I should not become Orthodox in preference to Catholic.

You can’t become generic “Orthodox.” Your choice is to become one of the 16 (I think) flavors of Orthodoxy – Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, etc.

And you have to join one of the 22 or 23 or whatever it is “sui juris churches.” The fact that one of those is much, much bigger than the others is ecclesiologically irrelevant.

If anything, this argument works for the Orthodox. The Orthodox do not consider parallel jurisdictions within a single region to be a good thing, for the most part. They are working to end this abnormal situation. I have not heard that Catholics see the existence of parallel “sui juris churches” as an ecclesiological problem (and then you have religious orders, “personal prelatures,” etc. . . . ).

Edwin

 

[jpelham]

Balderdash, unless your criterion for unity is having a Pope.

Explain how Byzantine and Roman Catholics are united but Greek Orthodox and the OCA aren’t?
…

The criterion is doctrinal unity of course, that which all members of the Church at least profess.

 

[Contarini]

I personally considered the same thing in my conversion to the Catholic Church.

Here is a link to my blog where I talk about it a bit…hope it helps…

justingridveritasluxmea.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-i-am-catholic-and-not-orthodox.html

God bless
Justin

When you say that Orthodox jurisdictions aren’t “in communion with each other,” what do you mean?

Do you mean that there are traditionalist Orthodox who reject mainstream Orthodoxy? Sure–and the same is true in Catholicism. Yes, it’s easier for Catholics to say that the traditionalists are schismatics, given the Catholic emphasis on communion with Rome, but saying “it’s harder to tell who’s in schism in Orthodoxy” is a bit different from saying “Orthodox jurisdictions aren’t in communion with each other.”

Do you mean the temporary spats that occur, for instance, between the Greek Synod and Constantinople, or sometimes between Moscow and Constantinople? These were fairly common in the early Church, pre-Schism, and don’t constitute much of an argument, I think.

If you’re talking about the Copts and other non-Chalcedonians, then you have an even weaker case, I think. Just because they are Eastern Christians doesn’t mean that their disunity from other Eastern Christians makes “Orthodoxy” divided, any more than the division between Catholics and other Western Christians makes Catholicism divided.

Other than those three options, I’m not sure what you mean. There is a fellowship of “canonical” Orthodox jurisdictions who all recognize each other and are in communion with each other. From their perspective, other “Orthodox” are in schism.

One of the most frustrating double standards in Catholic discussions of this issue is the Catholic tendency to treat any division between two non-Catholic groups as signs of disunity within a larger non-Catholic identity, while insisting that any division between Catholics and some other group with which Catholics share much is simply a division away from the Catholic Church and doesn’t impair Catholic unity. This is not a consistent position.

Edwin

 

[mjakemccoy]

“As for Peter, we have no knowledge at all of when he came to Rome and what he did there before he was martyred. Certainly he was not the original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome in that sense). There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church --a claim not made till the third century. Most likely he did not spend any major time at Rome before 58 when Paul wrote to the Romans, and so it may have been only in the 60s and relatively shortly before his martyrdom that Peter came to the capital.” - Brown, Raymond Edward., and John P. Meier. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. New York: Paulist, 1983. P. 98.

These chaps ^ are/were heavy weight Roman Catholic scholars.

“ALTHOUGH CATHOLIC TRADITION, BEGINNING IN the late second and early third centuries, regards St. Peter as the first bishop of Rome and, therefore, as the first pope, there is no evidence that Peter was involved in the initial establishment of the Christian community in Rome (indeed, what evidence there is would seem to point in the opposite direction) or that he served as Rome’s first bishop…He often shared his position of prominence with James and John…However, there is no evidence that before his death Peter actually served the church of Rome as its first bishop, even though the “fact” is regularly taken for granted by a wide spectrum of Catholics and others.” - McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 25, 29.

The 3rd century claim was made by a chap of the name Irenaeus. If you’re not familiar with Irenaeus he was the very first Christian to declare the tetramorph as canonical (all 4 Gospels as being worthy of the Bible, the same Gospels all Christians use today). He was a pupil of Polycarp, who was martyred in Rome and was a disciple of the Apostle John. He’s about as heavy hitting as it gets, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

Before Irenaeus Christians would typically follow one Gospel and if they were lucky a few Epistles. If you’re not familiar with the Roman Persecutions they were extremely brutal, killing 100,000’s of Christians over a 300 year period. During the first 200 years every bishop of Rome but one was martyred. The Emperors understood the faith was somehow dependent on these “bishops” so they felt it necessary to wipe them out. Not alot of writings survived this era, the Roman Empire was pretty good when it came to persecuting, but the Church persevered by the grace of God. Traditions were handed down by those who died to preserve the Gospel. We have the books we have today due to martyrs like Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp.

Clement was the 4th bishop of Rome, he had been ordained by Peter. Origen, Eusebius and Jerome claim he was the Clement Paul mentioned in Phil 4:3. He also continued the struggles in Rome with Simon the Magician mentioned in Acts 8:9. His first letter to the Corinthians was considered canonical by eastern churches until the 8th century. In the letter Clement is called to deal with divisions in Corinth even though the Apostle John was still alive and closer to Corinth than was Clement. The office and duty of the bishop of Rome was well understood then and relatively unchalleged until the 1500’s. Some may have denied the pope before this, but they would declare themselves pope, never denying the notion that the office of Peter was still existent, outside of minor schisms. When the Orthodox Church broke they claimed succession from St. Andrew, not denying Rome’s claim to Peter.

 

[Perplexity]

The 3rd century claim was made by a chap of the name Irenaeus. If you’re not familiar with Irenaeus he was the very first Christian to declare the tetramorph as canonical (all 4 Gospels as being worthy of the Bible, the same Gospels all Christians use today). He was a pupil of Polycarp, who was martyred in Rome and was a disciple of the Apostle John. He’s about as heavy hitting as it gets, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

Before Irenaeus Christians would typically follow one Gospel and if they were lucky a few Epistles. If you’re not familiar with the Roman Persecutions they were extremely brutal, killing 100,000’s of Christians over a 300 year period. During the first 200 years every bishop of Rome but one was martyred. The Emperors understood the faith was somehow dependent on these “bishops” so they felt it necessary to wipe them out. Not alot of writings survived this era, the Roman Empire was pretty good when it came to persecuting, but the Church persevered by the grace of God. Traditions were handed down by those who died to preserve the Gospel. We have the books we have today due to martyrs like Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp.

Clement was the 4th bishop of Rome, he had been ordained by Peter. Origen, Eusebius and Jerome claim he was the Clement Paul mentioned in Phil 4:3. He also continued the struggles in Rome with Simon the Magician mentioned in Acts 8:9. His first letter to the Corinthians was considered canonical by eastern churches until the 8th century. In the letter Clement is called to deal with divisions in Corinth even though the Apostle John was still alive and closer to Corinth than was Clement. The office and duty of the bishop of Rome was well understood then and relatively unchalleged until the 1500’s. Some may have denied the pope before this, but they would declare themselves pope, never denying the notion that the office of Peter was still existent, outside of minor schisms. When the Orthodox Church broke they claimed succession from St. Andrew, not denying Rome’s claim to Peter.

It’s fairly uncontroversial that there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome until about the mid 2nd century, so these lists of successors are quite anachronistic. Here are just two scholars but I could direct you to all kinds of further resources on this if you want including Roman Catholics (who generally say the same thing).

“In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent.” - Kelly, Joseph F. The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1992. p. 6.

“Later, as the close of the first and even in the second century, the two terms are still used in like manner for the same office. The Roman bishop Clement, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians says, that the apostles, in the newly founded churches, appointed the first fruits of the faith, i.e., the first converts, ‘bishops and deacons.’ Here he omits the (presbuteroi), as Paul does in Phil. 1:1, for the simple reason that they are in his view identical with (episkopoi); while conversely, in c. 57, he enjoins subjection to presbyters, without mentioning bishops. The Didache mentions bishops and deacons, but no presbyters. Clement of Alexandria distinguishes, it is true, the deaconate, the presbyterate, and the episcopate; but he supposes only a two-fold official character, that of presbyters, and that of deacons–a view which found advocates so late as the middle ages, even in pope Urban II, A.D. 1091. Lastly, Irenaeus, towards the close of the second century, though himself a bishop, makes only a relative difference between episcopi and presbyteri; speaks of successions of the one in the same sense as the other; terms the office of the latter ‘episcopatus’; and calls the bishops of Rome ‘presbyters.’ The express testimony of the learned Jerome, that the churches originally, before divisions arose through the instigation of Satan, were governed by the common council of the presbyters, and not till a later period was one of the presbyters placed at the head, to watch over the church and suppress schisms. He traces the difference of the office simply to ‘ecclesiastical’ custom as distinct from divine institution.” - Schaff, Philip. , Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 100-325History of the Christian Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2002. p. 89.