Peter founded more than 1 church...so why Rome?

[mesl4]

According to Peter’s letters, he seems to have founded the churches in the cities of the recipients:
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1)

You might say, “Well that just shows he wrote to them, not that he was there or founded there.”

But if you look at 2 Peter 1:16 he says “we told you” which implies that he was there telling them. Again, it could’ve been a letter, but wouldn’t he most likely be writing to people that he had already met in person?

So, if he founded these churches as well as in Rome, why does only the bishop of Rome get that Papal Authority?

 

[NotWorthy]

Peter also was the first bishop of Antioch, and this is recognized by the Church (only Antioch and Rome, BTW).

So, why Rome? According to tradition, Peter settled finally in Rome. And he was there, on and off (but mostly on), for 25 years before he was crucified upside down.

Rome was the best place to establish a headquarters. Why? Well, the reason can be found in the phrase, “All Roads lead to Rome”. Where else can you go and have access to all the civilized world, but Rome?

 

[Dogface_Soldier]

Peter didn’t found any churches; Christ founded the only one (upon Peter, it so happens). Rome, as a locality, has no ontological significance. It happens to be where Peter died, and Peter’s successors have to reside somewhere- might as well be where Peter died. Popes have resided outside of Rome, too.

 

[NotWorthy]

Peter didn’t found any churches; Christ founded the only one. Rome, as a locality, has no ontological significance. It happens to be where Peter died, and Peter’s successors have to reside somewhere- might as well be where Peter died. Popes have resided outside of Rome, too.

Yes, out of personal safety, and then out of laziness and comfort. But the whole time, they were still the Bishop of Rome.

 

[mesl4]

Peter also was the first bishop of Antioch, and this is recognized by the Church (only Antioch and Rome, BTW).

So, why Rome? According to tradition, Peter settled finally in Rome. And he was there, on and off (but mostly on), for 25 years before he was crucified upside down.

Rome was the best place to establish a headquarters. Why? Well, the reason can be found in the phrase, “All Roads lead to Rome”. Where else can you go and have access to all the civilized world, but Rome?

So why would the bishop of Rome be more powerful or able to take authority over that of Antioch? What if the 2 bishops had very different views on something? The Antiochene (sp?) bishop should be just as legit. What about Paul? He was a super apostles too. Why are his churches not recognized as having authority?

Isn’t it the Eastern Orthodox that allow each bishop it’s own authority over certain areas, and don’t submit to 1 alone?

 

[NotWorthy]

So why would the bishop of Rome be more powerful or able to take authority over that of Antioch? What if the 2 bishops had very different views on something? The Antiochene (sp?) bishop should be just as legit. What about Paul? He was a super apostles too. Why are his churches not recognized as having authority?

Isn’t it the Eastern Orthodox that allow each bishop it’s own authority over certain areas, and don’t submit to 1 alone?

Because Peter held Primacy. When Peter left Antioch, don’t you think he left someone (a bishop) in charge to prevent the Church from faltering? While in Rome, who held Primacy? Peter? Or the Bishop of Antioch.

Did you ever notice that Paul is never listed as a Bishop? I think he started the Church, and then left others in charge after him. I think Paul was very sensitive to the fact that people may tend to follow him and so he seemed to refrain from staying somewhere long enough to be a bishop (at least that’s my opinion).

So, as has been evidenced by the earliest Church, bishops had to be in agreement with Rome when exerting their authority. Other cities and bishops took their disputes to Rome, took their questions to Rome, and constantly praised Rome above all others. Even the Eastern Church would take unresolved disputes to Rome, and only balk when Rome decided against their wishes.

 

[mesl4]

Because Peter held Primacy. When Peter left Antioch, don’t you think he left someone (a bishop) in charge to prevent the Church from faltering? While in Rome, who held Primacy? Peter? Or the Bishop of Antioch.
.

Yes, so that person in Antioch would be his successor, just like the one he appoints in Rome would be his successor, so they should be equals after he dies.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, so that person in Antioch would be his successor, just like the one he appoints in Rome would be his successor, so they should be equals after he dies.

No, they should (and are) not. The early Church understood this, for Antioch was never looked to as the Primacy among Bishoprics. Even Ignatius in 110AD, the 3rd successor of Peter at Antioch, praised Rome above all other Churches (including his).

 

[mesl4]

No, they should (and are) not. The early Church understood this, for Antioch was never looked to as the Primacy among Bishoprics. Even Ignatius in 110AD, the 3rd successor of Peter at Antioch, praised Rome above all other Churches (including his).

Hmm that’s weird. Is there a reason? Is it just because Rome is the big city and therefore more influential?

 

[Strategery]

Hmm that’s weird. Is there a reason? Is it just because Rome is the big city and therefore more influential?

The office was with Peter, wherever he went. As the post above, he spent most of his time in Rome over the last 25 years of his life. The spiritual successor of Peter’s office chose to reside in Rome, and it eventually became tradition (with a small “t”).

 

[mesl4]

The office was with Peter, wherever he went. As the post above, he spent most of his time in Rome over the last 25 years of his life. The spiritual successor of Peter’s office chose to reside in Rome, and it eventually became tradition (with a small “t”).

But the Church teaches that the bishop of Rome is only primary because it’s Peter’s successor. A successor is someone that’s come after him, in his line/handed down from him. So if he appointed a bishop in Antioch, and anywhere else, those bishops would also be successors, and so on. It doesn’t look like there will be a convincing argument, but thanks for trying

 

[NotWorthy]

But the Church teaches that the bishop of Rome is only primary because it’s Peter’s successor. A successor is someone that’s come after him, in his line/handed down from him. So if he appointed a bishop in Antioch, and anywhere else, those bishops would also be successors, and so on. It doesn’t look like there will be a convincing argument, but thanks for trying

So, that’s when you look to what the early Church taught. Look at St. Ignatius, the 3rd successor to Peter in Antioch, probably entered the Church of Antioch under Peter - read his Epistle to the Romans, and you will understand that the Bishops of Antioch in the early Church never thought that they were in line for primacy… period.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hmm that’s weird. Is there a reason? Is it just because Rome is the big city and therefore more influential?

What better place to establish your headquarters than the city that is the “center of the world”. I mean, in order to maintain a continuity of Apostolic Tradition, where would you reside? In a place that had communications with all the empire? Or a back-water country? Everyone sent officials to Rome. Syria? I don’t think so.

Also, don’t forget. Rome had the two greatest witnesses to Christ - Peter and Paul - who were both martyred in Rome.

 

[Watchman]

So if he appointed a bishop in Antioch, and anywhere else, those bishops would also be successors, and so on. It doesn’t look like there will be a convincing argument, but thanks for trying

I think, perhaps, you are confusing the order of offices. The bishop of Rome is not Pope. The Pope is bishop of Rome. When Peter placed bishops in other cities (like Antioch) their office was “Bishop” they did not receive Peter’s full authority as head of the church as given by Christ. On Peters death, his successor received that authority, the Papacy. Along with the Papacy came the office of bishop of Rome.

 

[losh14]

Did you ever notice that Paul is never listed as a Bishop? I think he started the Church, and then left others in charge after him. I think Paul was very sensitive to the fact that people may tend to follow him and so he seemed to refrain from staying somewhere long enough to be a bishop (at least that’s my opinion).QUOTE]

I appreciate your comment, but I’m going to disagree with on this. While Paul’s leadership was important, Scripture paints Peter as the first apparant earthly leader of the Church, especially in Acts 9-13. Paul didn’t come about until Acts 13, and at that point he was a nemesis. Following his conversion, God used Paul’s unique ability to travel (as a Roman citizen) to make him a missionary. Bishops, by nature, are defined by geography, and so require some measure of permanent residence. Recall that the Greek for bishop is “episcopos” meaning overseer, and Paul, in his constant travels, could do less overseeing than Peter, who stayed apparantly longer in one place even during his travels.

 

[NotWorthy]

I appreciate your comment, but I’m going to disagree with on this. While Paul’s leadership was important, Scripture paints Peter as the first apparant earthly leader of the Church, especially in Acts 9-13. Paul didn’t come about until Acts 13, and at that point he was a nemesis. Following his conversion, God used Paul’s unique ability to travel (as a Roman citizen) to make him a missionary. Bishops, by nature, are defined by geography, and so require some measure of permanent residence. Recall that the Greek for bishop is “episcopos” meaning overseer, and Paul, in his constant travels, could do less overseeing than Peter, who stayed apparantly longer in one place even during his travels.

I’m sorry, but I may have misled you.
When I said, " I think he started the Church, and then left others in charge after him…", I meant the Church in each particular region that he visited. So yes, Peter was the first leader of The Church in its entirety. But in the region of Corinth, for example, Paul would start the local Church and then leave it to someone else to run as he went and planted and watered elsewhere.

So, by his nature of not staying anywhere for very long, Paul seemed to have refrained from being Bishop, because any subsequent visit to a city where he had been a bishop, would have caused a conflict among the faithful,** In my opinion.
**

 

[losh14]

I’m sorry, but I may have misled you.

No, I think I misread you. My bad. Sorry, but thanks for clarifying your well-taken point.

 

[broski234]

According to Peter’s letters, he seems to have founded the churches in the cities of the recipients:
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1)

You might say, “Well that just shows he wrote to them, not that he was there or founded there.”

But if you look at 2 Peter 1:16 he says “we told you” which implies that he was there telling them. Again, it could’ve been a letter, but wouldn’t he most likely be writing to people that he had already met in person?

So, if he founded these churches as well as in Rome, why does only the bishop of Rome get that Papal Authority?

In Matt 5:14, Jesus says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is in reference to the Church. The Church is not an invisible, atmospheric entity, but a single, visible and universal body through the Eucharist. The Church is the extension of the Incarnation. Rome is set on a great big hill. more to come…

 

[Randy_Carson]

According to Peter’s letters, he seems to have founded the churches in the cities of the recipients:
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1)

You might say, “Well that just shows he wrote to them, not that he was there or founded there.”

But if you look at 2 Peter 1:16 he says “we told you” which implies that he was there telling them. Again, it could’ve been a letter, but wouldn’t he most likely be writing to people that he had already met in person?

So, if he founded these churches as well as in Rome, why does only the bishop of Rome get that Papal Authority?

From the Vatican’s website:

Nevertheless, the Roman Pontiffs have exercised their authority in Rome and, according to the conditions and opportunities of the times, have done so in wider and even universal areas, by virtue of their succeeding Peter. Written documents do not tell us how this succession occurred in the first link connecting Peter with the series of the bishops of Rome. It can be deduced, however, by considering everything that Pope Clement states in the letter cited above regarding the appointment of the first bishops and their successors. After recalling that the apostles, “preaching in the countryside and the cities, experienced their first fruits in the Spirit and appointed them bishops and deacons of future believers” (42, 4), St. Clement says in detail that, in order to avoid future conflicts regarding the episcopal dignity, the apostles “appointed those whom we said and then ordered that, after they had died, other proven men would succeed them in their ministry” (44, 2). The historical and canonical means by which that inheritance is passed on to them can change, and have indeed changed. But over the centuries, an unbroken chain links that transition from Peter to his first successor in the Roman See.

This method of historical investigation (which could be called genetic) into the Petrine succession in the Church of Rome is confirmed by two other considerations. There is a negative one which, beginning with the need of a succession to Peter by virtue of Christ’s very institution (and so iure divino, as is usually said in theological-canonical language), confirms that there are no signs of such a succession in any other Church. Moreover, there is another consideration we could call positive: it consists in showing the convergence of signs that in every age point to the See of Rome as that of Peter’s successor.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930127en.html

 

[Crimson_Seraph]

No, they should (and are) not. The early Church understood this, for Antioch was never looked to as the Primacy among Bishoprics. Even Ignatius in 110AD, the 3rd successor of Peter at Antioch, praised Rome above all other Churches (including his).

And isn’t it interesting to note that out of all his letters he addresses the Bishop of everyone one of these but Rome’s? Why didn’t Saint Ignatius mention the Bishop of Rome at all?