Myterdom of Peter

[JimG]

Brian, you really are hung up about this issue. I’m not sure that anything would convince you for sure unless you could time travel back to the time of Peter and watch as he handed on his office to Linus, and Linus to Anacletus, and so on to Clement, etc.

The fact of the matter is that the office was handed on. The Church was always careful to preserve the lists of bishops of Rome.

Why Rome? Jesus commissioned Peter but he didn’t say, “now go to Rome and set up headquarters there.” Perhaps if Peter had stayed in Antioch, we would now be listing the bishops of Antioch as the successors to Peter. But there would still be a papacy.

But he did go to Rome, and so his successors led the Church from Rome. And that was the imperial capital at the time, so maybe that’s why he went.

And of course, Peter and Linus and Anacletus and Clement didn’t see any need to set up a Curia or a lot of magisterial offices. They thought Jesus would return quite soon; no need for a lot of organization. But circumstances changed. Jesus didn’t return right away. The need for organization increased. I don’t see it as a problem, but I realize you do.

 

[BrianH]

JimG:

Brian, you really are hung up about this issue. I’m not sure that anything would convince you for sure unless you could time travel back to the time of Peter and watch as he handed on his office to Linus, and Linus to Anacletus, and so on to Clement, etc.

The fact of the matter is that the office was handed on. The Church was always careful to preserve the lists of bishops of Rome.

Why Rome? Jesus commissioned Peter but he didn’t say, “now go to Rome and set up headquarters there.” Perhaps if Peter had stayed in Antioch, we would now be listing the bishops of Antioch as the successors to Peter. But there would still be a papacy.

But he did go to Rome, and so his successors led the Church from Rome. And that was the imperial capital at the time, so maybe that’s why he went.

And of course, Peter and Linus and Anacletus and Clement didn’t see any need to set up a Curia or a lot of magisterial offices. They thought Jesus would return quite soon; no need for a lot of organization. But circumstances changed. Jesus didn’t return right away. The need for organization increased. I don’t see it as a problem, but I realize you do.

Jim…I am hung up, this is true
I am a Bible reader, like many on here of course.
Years after reading Paul and Acts specifically, I heard about the claims of Catholicism as it relates to what happened after Christ’s statement to Peter and said WHAT??? I have looked for evidence and find …nothing convincing. I am hung up and do not mean to highjack threads.
BH

 

[NotWorthy]

BrianH:

I understand, but this is not a good example, this office ceased to exist historically.

Yes, it ceased to exist, because the kingdom was destroyed. What’s this got to do with the New Kingdom, which Jesus “will be with us always”? Wouldn’t a Kingdom that the “gates of hell will not prevail” mean that a prime minister’s office will be needed?

brianh:

I am not interested in theories. I want early tradition or scriptural proof. Of course this could be a reason, and a thousand others. We are talking about one of, I think THE, most important claim made by the RC church. It is not too much to ask for scritptural or historical support.

It is asking too much for historical support. The Church was an outlawed religion throughout the Roman empire. Bishops tended to end up dead if they weren’t careful. We’ve been able to preserve only a fraction of a fraction of what was written back then.

You also seem to ignore the fact that if a Pope claimed Primacy where there was none before, then there would have also been an uproar.

brianh:

I do not think they did decided the Bishop of Rome would always be the leader. There would be proof of that.
None of them mentioned it in scripture. Peter did not mention it in Acts or in 1st or 2nd Peter. My questioning this is reasonable.
BH

Yes, and my accepting this as Sacred Tradition is quite reasonable as well.

Notworthy

 

[JezCat]

who said the Bishop of Rome gets to lead the church???
Who said the Bishop of Rome is more important than the Bishop of Antioch?

Brian,

Church tradition says that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church. And since the Church has divine authority given to it by Christ himself, nothing more is needed IMO.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia…

St. Cyprian. In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter, saying that Cornelius has succeeded to “the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter” (Ep 55:8; cf. 59:14).

Firmilian of Caesarea. Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from Peter (Cyprian, Ep. 75:17). He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he would have done so. Thus in 250 the Roman episcopate of Peter was admitted by those best able to know the truth, not merely at Rome but in the churches of Africa and of Asia Minor.

Tertullian. In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (De Pud. 21) mentions Callistus’s claim that Peter’s power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop.

Hippolytus. About the same period, Hippolytus ( “Liberian Catalogue” – “Clement of Rome”, 1:259) reckons Peter in the list of Roman bishops.

"Adversus Marcionem". We have moreover a poem, “Adversus Marcionem”, written apparently at the same period, in which Peter is said to have passed on to Linus “the chair on which he himself had sat” (P.L., II 1077).

St. Irenaeus. These witnesses bring us to the beginning of the third century. In the second century we cannot look for much evidence. With the exception of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Alexandria, all the writers whose works we possess are apologists against either Jews or pagans. In works of such a character there was no reason to refer to such a matter as Peter’s Roman episcopate.

Irenaeus, however, supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (Adv. haer. 1:27:1, and 3:4:3) he speaks of Hyginus as ninth Bishop of Rome, thus employing an enumeration which involves the inclusion of Peter as first bishop

 

[JimG]

Why does the bishop of Rome lead the Church?

I think it is because that is where the successors of Peter are to be found. There’s nothing about Rome which inevitably ordains it as the home of the papacy, except for the fact that Peter was it’s bishop, and so it was from there that he and his successors led the Church.

That’s how it started out, and so it remains.

 

[porthos11]

JimG:

Why does the bishop of Rome lead the Church?

I think it is because that is where the successors of Peter are to be found. There’s nothing about Rome which inevitably ordains it as the home of the papacy, except for the fact that Peter was it’s bishop, and so it was from there that he and his successors led the Church.

That’s how it started out, and so it remains.

Brian actually has a valid point. Why Rome and not Antioch? Both cities have an episcopacy originating from St. Peter, and Antioch has a preserved line of succession as well. The question here is not so much the existence of the Papacy, but why the Papacy is Rome-based and not Antioch-based (St. Peter was first Bishop of Antioch).

Of course as a Catholic, I fully accept the Bishop of Rome as the Pope. But I’m also interested in the Rome vs. Antioch answer.

 

[JimG]

porthos11:

Brian actually has a valid point. Why Rome and not Antioch? Both cities have an episcopacy originating from St. Peter, and Antioch has a preserved line of succession as well. The question here is not so much the existence of the Papacy, but why the Papacy is Rome-based and not Antioch-based (St. Peter was first Bishop of Antioch).

Of course as a Catholic, I fully accept the Bishop of Rome as the Pope. But I’m also interested in the Rome vs. Antioch answer.

It seems obvious to me. The papacy would have been Antioch based if Peter had stayed there and handed on the succession there. But he didn’t. He moved to Rome and handed on his office to Linus.

 

[NotWorthy]

porthos11:

Brian actually has a valid point. Why Rome and not Antioch? Both cities have an episcopacy originating from St. Peter, and Antioch has a preserved line of succession as well. The question here is not so much the existence of the Papacy, but why the Papacy is Rome-based and not Antioch-based (St. Peter was first Bishop of Antioch).

Of course as a Catholic, I fully accept the Bishop of Rome as the Pope. But I’m also interested in the Rome vs. Antioch answer.

Peter would have had to have given up the primacy in order to leave it with the Bishop of Antioch.

Why Rome? Maybe because Jesus told the Apostles to spread the Good News to the ends of the Earth. Where better to establish your headquarters then at the center of civilization, if you intend to do this? If “All roads lead to Rome”, then…

This may have been advantageous until our Mother Church could stand on her own, with a little Divine Help, of course!

Notworthy

 

[DavidFilmer]

BryanH - you are troubled by the lack of very ancient (First Century) historical documentation to support the primacy of the Office of Peter (which, usually, happens to be centered in Rome).

It is true that there is not much in the way of clearly corraborative First Century documentation. But I maintain that this fact is in itself evidence of the Catholic position.

Folks don’t tend to write down the everyday things that are taken for granted. For example, we cannot prove from history or Scripture that Jesus ever smiled or laughed.

However, new and unusual things have a greater tendency to be recorded. Things that cause sadness or controversy. Things that are unexpected. Thus, while we cannot prove that Jesus ever laughed, we can prove that He wept.

At any point in time, if the Bishop of Rome were to suddenly declare himself to be preiminent, with no established precident, there would have been LOTS of controversy. A person simply does not sieze power and prestiege from others without angering them. And First Century Popes did not have the political or military might to seize such power in the first place – they had no power base from which to launch such a power grab. The effort would surely fail, and their feeble attempt would be recorded and remembered for a long, long time.

The fact that we can observe a clearly documented primacy of Peter’s Office as early as the Second and Third Centuries, and that can find absolutely no hint of controversy regarding the establishment of this primacy, is a strong indication of the truth of the Catholic position.

The lack of First Century documentation actually supports the Catholic position.

 

[DeFide]

BrianH:

The Bible tell us the Bible is not the final court of appeal?
I am not sure whether to laugh or cry at this!!!
I notice you capitalize “Church”. Is that from the Bible as well friend?
NJ

Why laugh or cry? Jesus said the Church is the final court of appeal. I notice you didn’t try to refute this, but only made an interjection.

The Church, having divinely-given authority, has the authority to say where the pope is going to be. It’s not difficult. Like it or not, Sacred Scripture is a subset of the Sacred Tradition of the Church, of which, obviously, the Church is the final arbiter.

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/solascriptura21.html

 

[BrianH]

DeFide
I will be very busy the next couple of days and i do thank everyone for their answers.
“The Bible tells us that the Church, not the Bible, is the final court of appeal.”
The Bible does not use “the Church” in the same context you are I contend.
Anyway,
This is one of those things you will laugh about when you get what I am saying. The Bible does not say anything about THE BIBLE that is why that was funny…to me.
Laughing with, not at.

David,
The first 1000 years of church history is rife with problems about authority. I mean, we start, I would say with Victor but…goodness, problems were all over the place about authority.

BH

 

[DeFide]

BrianH:

DeFide
Anyway,
This is one of those things you will laugh about when you get what I am saying. The Bible does not say anything about THE BIBLE that is why that was funny…to me.
Laughing with, not at.
BH

Agreed. So does that mean there’s no disagreement on this point? Perhaps if I could hear the inflections in your voice, this would be cleared up.

 

[OhioBob]

JezCat:

Brian,

Church tradition says that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church.

I’ve always thought of it as “the head of the church is also the Bishop of Rome”, not that “the Bishop of Rome is also the head of the Church”. As in, the Pope by nature of his office, also serves as the Bishop of Rome. The implication being that the post of Bishop of Rome is imputed upon the Pope, not that whoever is Bishop of Rome gets to be Pope because of his office as Bishop. Confusing, sorry.

I agree that if Peter had stayed in Antioch, the tradition would probably have been that the Pope was also the Bishop of Antioch. But he didn’t, so it isn’t.

It has always seemed that the Pax Romana and the preeminence of Rome as the center of culture and travel of the day is what made the rapid spread of the Church possible in the first place.

I guess God has great timing (even if he doesn’t actually have “time”.

 

[JimG]

Or, if St. Peter had traveled to Kansas and settled here, he would have designated his successor here, and we would now have a line of the Kansas papacy. Oh, but we already have one here. Better not push it.

 

[Eden]

BrianH:

David,
The first 1000 years of church history is rife with problems about authority. I mean, we start, I would say with Victor but…goodness, problems were all over the place about authority.

BH

What are you talking about? Could you please explain what you mean “with Victor”? You used the name of Pope Victor in another post but in both these cases it has been with vague references. Could you provide something of substance to back up your claims about problems with authority?

 

[OhioBob]

JimG:

Or, if St. Peter had traveled to Kansas and settled here, he would have designated his successor here, and we would now have a line of the Kansas papacy. Oh, but we already have one here. Better not push it.

We’ve got one in Montana too, last time I heard. Peter sure got around.

 

[John_Henry]

I draw attention to this homily by Pope Benedict for yesterday’s feast of the Chair of Peter:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=100420

He goes through a brief history of the commissioning of Peter to be the rock of the Church, he who would confirm his brethren, he who would feed the sheep. His role in the Church was handed to those who succeeded him at Rome because that is where is “position” was layed down upon his martyrdom. It is clear that the development was subsequently towards Rome and away from Antioch, as the quote of St. Irenaeus in the Pope’s homily makes clear:

With this Church (Rome), because of her outstanding superiority, the universal Church must be in agreement, that is, the faithful everywhere" (III, 3, 2-3).

I don’t see what’s so hard. The bishops of Antioch also succeed to Peter, but Peter took his role in the Church with him to Rome. Where it was eventually layed down and passed on. Subsequent bishops (Clement immediately with respect to Corinth) took up the task of governing the Church. Even heretics acknowledged it, as when they were deposed from their sees, they invariably appealed to Rome.

 

[NotWorthy]

Eden:

What are you talking about? Could you please explain what you mean “with Victor”? You used the name of Pope Victor in another post but in both these cases it has been with vague references. Could you provide something of substance to back up your claims about problems with authority?

There was the question in the 2nd century of when to celebrate Easter, on the same date each year, or on the same day (Sunday). There were numerous local synods commissioned to decide the issue. Other than Asia Minor, they all decided on Sunday (either immediately or after a short time). The churches in Asia Minor refused to accept Sunday as Easter, preferring a certain date.

After a debate in which the churches refused to give in, Pope Victor ex-communicated them. As you can well imagine, this caused quite a stir. Origen questioned Victor about the wisdom of ex-communicating the churches, but he didn’t question the Pope’s ability to ex-communicate.

Now someone else may be able to provide more information, but BrianH says that no one obeyed the “Ex-Communication” edict. I’m not sure about that.

There are numerous times during the ensuing period where other churches appealed to Rome to settle local disputes. Often the people making the appeal were often found to be in the wrong. When the Pope would declare this, often times these same people then went and decried, “Who does the Pope think he is?” and “What gives him the right to tell us what to do”!

People that claim the Pope has no authority would use the writings of these people when they complained about the Pople’s “alleged” authority and ignore the writings of these same people when they appealed to the Pope for settlement.

Notworthy

 

[BrianH]

Eden:

What are you talking about? Could you please explain what you mean “with Victor”? You used the name of Pope Victor in another post but in both these cases it has been with vague references. Could you provide something of substance to back up your claims about problems with authority?

“What becomes evident is that Victor was the first bishop of Rome to assume unto that office “the right to interfere in other churches” (Kelly ODP 12). As Michael McHugh has observed “Victor’s implicit assertion of Roman authority would become important in subsequent debate over papal supremacy” (GEEC 926). But it is also worthy of note that in confronting Victor, Polycrates had quoted Peter as recorded in Acts 5:29 (“It is necessary to obey God, rather than men.”) against the very Petrine succession which Victor claimed (at Eusebius H.E. 5.24.7; cf. Grant 1970: 157)!”

dacb.org/stories/tunisia/victor_2ndc.html

“The next historical mention of Irenaeus is between the years 189 A.D. and 198 A.D., concerning the celebration of Pascha (Easter). The Churches of Asia celebrated Easter on the fourteenth day after the new moon with which the month of Nisan began. The rest of Christendom held that the day on which the Resurrection could be celebrated was Sunday. The pope most probably sent letters to Asia Minor requesting councils to be convoked in order to discuss the proper day for the celebration of Pascha. Church councils were held in other provinces including Rome. The decisions of the councils were unanimous except for the province of Ephesus, Pope Victor was determined to bring about uniformity to the universal Church and he attempted to do this by suppressing the custom of Asia. He endeavored to excommunicate the Church of Asia as heterodox. To this decree Irenaeus answered and warned Pope Victor. Eusebius the historian relates that Irenaeus lived up to his name as ‘peacemaker.’
“Irenaeus, whose name means ‘peaceable’ and who by temperate was a peacemaker, pleaded and negotiated thus for the peace of the churches. He corresponded by letter not only with Victor but with very many other heads of churches, setting out both sides of the question under discussion.” (16)
This incident is important in understanding how Irenaeus saw the Church of Rome. By his intervention in the Paschal controversy, he did not recognize the primacy of authority in the Church of Rome.”
home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/St_Irenaeus.htm

sorry guys i cant respond more, I gotta a job to do and I am actually doing it this week
BH

 

[Eden]

"This incident is important in understanding how Irenaeus saw the Church of Rome. By his intervention in the Paschal controversy, he did not recognize the primacy of authority in the Church of Rome.”
home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/St_Irenaeus.htm

BH

So you are just referring to the same topic that I already addressed in another thread and never got a response from you about? St. Irenaeus appealed to the pope to overturn the excommunications. He considered St. Irenaeus’ council and did remove the excommunications. This is a clear example of St. Irenaeus recognizing the authority of Pope Victor and sent a letter to him to persuade him. We see how the pope was the final authority on both giving and reversing excommunications. Where is the evidence that his authority was ever decreased in this historical snippet?