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

  • Thread starter Thread starter mesl4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Crimson_Seraph said:
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?
Click to expand...
Does he have to? When Ignatius was writing, he wrote things as already understood. In other words, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was already understood.
 
Crimson_Seraph said:
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?
Click to expand...
So you have to praise the Bishop’s Diocese and mention him by name to acknowledge him as Pope?

Where’s that in the Bible?
 
Crimson_Seraph said:
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?
Click to expand...
Ignatius of Antioch
“Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict” (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).
Click to expand...
I may be talking semantics here (yes, I note the title of Bishop is not used in this quote). However, I’m not sure the title of “Bishop” was in common use during the time of the 12 Apostles, or even later with Paul. Do you have links to any info regarding Ignatius refering to “everyone but Peter” as Bishop?
 
Poco said:
I may be talking semantics here (yes, I note the title of Bishop is not used in this quote). However, I’m not sure the title of “Bishop” was in common use during the time of the 12 Apostles, or even later with Paul.
Click to expand...
Well, it (episkopos) was used in the NT, notably in both Titus and Timothy, when Paul notes that he left them in charge and instructed them to ordain priests (presbyteroi). While the roles of each were certainly still in flux in the NT era, the distinction between apostles, bishops, priests and deacons is certainly visible in the texts.
 
NotWorthy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Good point. Peter’s geographical location has no bearing on his primacy. If Peter ruled the Church from Tim buk Tu, we would be called Tim buk Tunian Catholics. 😛
God in his wisdom placed the centre of Christianity in the capital of the known world. Remember the church was severely persecuted, and it was probably better to hide in plain sight, with so many people coming and going. Too bad we don’t have all the details of Peter’s capture and execution.

Peter can appoint bishops to run their diocese without them being his successor. Why? Because to be a successor of Peter, the one who holds the chair has to be dead, and a successor has to be elected.

Peter is equal with other Apostles :eek:
insofar as their local jurisdiction is concerned. Pope Benedict XVI is bishop of the diocese of Rome, and Bishop Tonnos is the bishop of Hamilton, Ontario. In that sense they are equal bishops. But only those bishops who hold the chair of Peter can be the Pope (regardless of where the Pope is). Non-Catholics (and some Catholics) don’t understand the two-fold jurisdiction of the Pope. Rome is a city in Italy, the Papacy is the Chair of Peter.
 
Poco said:
I may be talking semantics here (yes, I note the title of Bishop is not used in this quote). However, I’m not sure the title of “Bishop” was in common use during the time of the 12 Apostles, or even later with Paul. Do you have links to any info regarding Ignatius refering to “everyone but Peter” as Bishop?
Click to expand...
Honestly we can’t tell when precisely the title began being used because even Scripture offers a paucity of ecclesial records at the time - a dozen or so epistles covering the first 60 years of Christianity. We do know that it was used in correspondence during Paul’s time to differentiate levels of leadership, and that these levels continued to be defined as the church grew in size and scope and new responsibilities required attendance. In the earliest of days, the Church ministered, evangelized and took up alms. By the early 2nd century, however, the bishops were actively engaged in combatting errors that had grown to the point that they held entire congregations in sway. By the fifth century, the Church had a substantial social welfare organ and was involved in aspects of governance and judicial resolution in areas where the political authority of Rome had subsided.

When talking about Ignatius - or any of the Church Fathers - we must bear in mind that:
  1. We don’t have a complete record of everything that was written
  2. Most of these wrote for specific purposes, ie to exhort a certain bishop or to rebuke a congregation or to counter arguments made by those we would call heretics. Very little was written to explicitly define “This person is part of the church, this person isn’t, this is where we spent so many denarii on sending aid to this city, this is my homily for last Sunday, etc.” Once we reach the era of convening councils we find a great deal more is written about the church structure and organization because it needed to be talked about, by the same token we only start to find some aspects of theology discussed in detail once they are challenged.
 
Poco said:
I may be talking semantics here (yes, I note the title of Bishop is not used in this quote). However, I’m not sure the title of “Bishop” was in common use during the time of the 12 Apostles, or even later with Paul. Do you have links to any info regarding Ignatius refering to “everyone but Peter” as Bishop?
Click to expand...
As I think this over again, I think I neglected two lines of thought.
  1. Was there a bishop in Rome at the time? Probably. For one, it was a large congregation. Paul’s epistle to the Romans indicates that there is at least a large Jewish community and probably many of them were sympathetic enough to Christianity to listen to the Apostle, and sufficient debate occurred there that Paul had to address at length a number of theological issues. Just given that Rome was a large city, and given the scale of persecutions that occurred in the first two centuries, we can surmise it likely that Rome’s congregation was very large and needed some form of leadership.
Was that leader considered a peer among equals or better by other self-identified bishops? Almost certainly.

We see in the sole surviving letter of Clement of Rome - who not only identified himself as a bishop of Rome but also as having personally met with and learned from Peter, and was consecrated as bishop by Peter’s successor, Linus - a man who confronted the Church at Corinth (still needing exhortation after Paul’s epistles) over their beliefs. He exercised authority over that congregation in a way that either suggested there was no bishop (indeed he had qualms with the removal of presbyters from that community) or that he overrode the authority of that bishop.
  1. Was there a recognition of primacy to this bishop? The earliest specific utterance to this is from Irenaeus of Lugdunum (or Lyons today) who praised the episcopacy of Rome for holding most steadfastly to the teachings of the Apostles, holding to a ‘superior origin’ and being the center around which the rest of the Church was able to remain in orthodox teaching. That’s around 180 a.d.
So last question, why Rome?
  1. Education - you had a large pool of well-educated individuals from which to draw for leadership
  2. Access - Rome wasn’t just the crossroads of the Mediterranean at the time. If you wanted something done, it was quickest to have it done from Rome. Much of Christian leadership came from wealth and/or political connection. During some of the persecutions it was noted by Imperial biographers that the Emperor himself had personal attendants and officers put to death when they refused to recant their Christian faith.
  3. Historical record - it has long (since at least the mid 4th century) been held that Peter and Paul both were martyred at Rome. Paul’s case is more certain, since he demanded appeal up to the Emperor (and lost, of course). Peter’s is likely, though not specifically stated in surviving records of the time that I’m aware of. Bear in mind that at the time Eusebius compiled the first complete ecclesial history, it would have been politically expedient for him to claim an Eastern capital for Christianity - Jerusalem certainly, or perhaps at least Constantinople. Instead, he specifically describes Rome as the administrative center for the Catholic Church.
Lastly, we must say to what extent the Church at Rome exerts control. This has certainly changed over time - it would be an error to say there has never been tension between the various episcopates. At one point, for example, Hippo (now Annaba, Algeria) was probably the undisputed center of Catholic leadership in Africa, until it was overwhelmed by the Moors. Administrative and theological authority has ultimately centered on the Roman Bishop for a number of reasons over history, but it is sufficient to say that prior to even the Council at Nicea, the Roman Episcopate held a degree of leadership above that of most of the other dioceses.
 
QUOTE=mesl4;4827459]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 😉

Oh but there is a convincing argument. First of all, who did Jesus give the KEYS to in Matthew’s Gospel? 😉 Peter alone and no one else. The KEYS mean a lot in the OT and Jesus’ Himself knew that fact.Problem is most people really have no understanding of the KEYS and its implications. Here is scriptural proof of Peter’s primacy:

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).
 
Mes14
It doesn’t look like there will be a convincing argument, but thanks for trying
Click to expand...
The facts are very clear – how could they be otherwise? Peter and his successors hold the Primacy, established by Christ.

Jesus founded His Church on Peter:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

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).

Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

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

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”
Crimson Seraph
Why didn’t Saint Ignatius mention the Bishop of Rome at all?
Click to expand...
It’s interesting also that Arnold Lunn in Now I See, Sheed & Ward, 1955) could quote from the Anglican Vicar of Oddington, Rev S Herbert Scott, that St Peter and his successors were recognised as the supreme judges in matters of faith by a long succession of great Eastern saints, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Denys, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others (p 218).

In his epistle to the Romans (around 110), St Ignatius of Antioch refers to the Church which, “presides in the land of the Romans” remarking that he could not command them the way Peter and Paul did – clearly referring to the leadership of Peter in Rome. (Reference in Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius 1988, p 202-3).
 
Crimson_Seraph said:
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?
Click to expand...
Hmmmm… let’s see… :hmmm:

A bishop… under Roman arrest… and under order of execution by Rome… for being a bishop… would WANT to mention the name of the very Bishop of Rome?

It seems like St. Ignatius would be signing the Bishop of Rome’s death sentence, if you ask me.
 
mesl4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Apostles were the first bishops and they appointed [ordained] bishops to serve after them. Peter was the first bishop of Jerusalem as well as Antioch and Rome. It was Peter, afterall, who addressed the crowd in Jerusalem on Pentecost. The second bishop of Jerusalem [the Apostle James] took over when Peter left for Antioch. In Antioch Peter was succeeded as bishop by Elvodius. Peter then went onto Rome. Note that while Peter can ordain bishops he retains the authority goiven to him in his office as the chief steward of the kingdom [read Isaiah 22:22] Peter does not leave the office of chief steward when he leaves Jerusalem or Antioch so those bishops do not succeed to that office. It is only when Peter dies in Rome that he vacates the office of chief steward of the church and his replacement then becomes not only bishop of Rome but chief steward of the church. The church in Corinth in 80 AD knew this and requested guidance from [Pope] Clement, bishop of Rome rather than the Apostle John who was still alive and closer to them or the bishops of Antioch or Jerusalem…
 
  1. Because Peter and Paul was martyred at Vatican Hill
  2. Because Rome was the capital of the Holy Roman Empire - Patriarchs from the eastern orthodox church respects the bishop of Rome as “first among equals” but treats him without supremacy over others. Later on, the Patriarch of Constantinople later asked if the title/honor could also be shared to both of them since Constantinople had become the “New Rome”.
  3. Rome have a significant number of Christians and it is the center of communication.
Although it can be argued that Rome participated less in the ecumenical councils (which was held on the East), eastern churches still respects the Bishop of Rome as the first among the remaining Churches.
 
pinoy_katoliko said:
  1. Because Peter and Paul was martyred at Vatican Hill
  2. Because Rome was the capital of the Holy Roman Empire - Patriarchs from the eastern orthodox church respects the bishop of Rome as “first among equals” but treats him without supremacy over others. Later on, the Patriarch of Constantinople later asked if the title/honor could also be shared to both of them since Constantinople had become the “New Rome”.
  3. Rome have a significant number of Christians and it is the center of communication.
Although it can be argued that Rome participated less in the ecumenical councils (which was held on the East), eastern churches still respects the Bishop of Rome as the first among the remaining Churches.
Click to expand...
Peter was martyred at Vatican Hill. Paul was martyred outside the walls of Rome along the Appian way on the otherside of the Tiber River. Basilicas named after both Apostles mark the spot of their graves.

The Greek Orthodox regard the Patriach of Constantinople as the “first among equals” not the Bishop of Rome. To them the Bishop of Rome is given a “Primacy of Honor” but they can’t seem to know what this “Primacy of Honor” is based on. In reality the bishop of Constantinople should not be a Patriarch. The original four Patriarchs [Rome, Antioch, jerusalem and Alexandria] were all based on Peter as he appointed bishops in each of those cities [The bishop of Alexandria was Mark the Evangelist who was sent there by Peter.] Constantinople was originally called Byzantium and they trace their Apostolic Succession to the Apostle Andrew, Peter’s brother. It was made a patriarchy because the government of the empire was moved there by Constantine so that diocese was elevated to a Patriarchy.

As for the early councils they were held in the East for several reasons:
  1. The heresies they convened to fight were Eastern Church heresies
  2. The emperor provided accomodations for the attendees
  3. Most of the Bishops were from the East.
But every council was attended by representatives of the Pope who were accorded all the honor due the Pope. Only that part of the work of the council that was approved by the pope was regarded as a general council.
 
Thanks for the info. 😃 This site is very enlightening for a young aspiring catholic who wants to defend his faith. Why dont they teach apologetics in Catholic Schools >.<
 
pinoy_katoliko said:
Thanks for the info. 😃 This site is very enlightening for a young aspiring catholic who wants to defend his faith. Why dont they teach apologetics in Catholic Schools >.<
Click to expand...
I think it’s Father Larry Richard who jokes, “Do you want your children to grow up and leave the Church? Send them to Catholic School!” Sometimes I think that’s true.
 
mesl4 said:
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 😉
Click to expand...
Hi mesl4 !

IMHO we can approach your interesting question from several points of view.
  1. The strength of petrine priciple in the ancient Church.
    This is not the main focus here, but we could note that all of the three main seats emerging in pre-nicene times boast a special connection with Peter. Rome, Alexandria ( considered founded by Peter’s direct disciple Mark), Antioch, where he had been bishop himself.
  2. No one, to my poor knowledge, ever challenged the primary place of Rome by seriously claiming the primacy for other seats. Why ?
    We could possibly imagine that was because of the status of Rome as capital and largest city.
Historical developments in the IV century tell us that was not the case.
A new capital was chosen, Costantinople. This new political centre, nevertheless, would not become the centre of the Church. No way. Eventually it would be acknowledged as “second place”. BTW, Costantinople was also linked to Peter, by claiming it was the church of his brother Andrew. 🙂

So all the seats in what would become known as the Pentarchy ( including Jerusalem)
could claim a petrine connection. That Rome was uniquely connected to Peter, and thereforeto be regarded as the locus of ecclesial primacy ( however this primacy should be precisely defined ), would go undisputed within this context. It has already been pointed out, that Saint Ignatius, far from claiming for his antiochian seat and himself the first role, extolls the roman church with
expressions having no parallel in its other epistles.

The root of this unique roman petrine connection can be considered Peter’s choice of Rome as the final seat of his pastoral work. Which , moreover, made Rome the place of his martyrdom, his supreme witness.
St Peter’s is literally built on what the early church would believe to be the tomb of the prince of the Apostles, which is, quite impressively indeed, right under the top of Michelangelo’s dome and the high altar.
  1. Some non catholic brothers like to underline Paul’s stature and role, his weigh in the primitive church.That could somehow balance Peter and the petrine principle, in someone’s eyes.
    Now the fact is, Paul made the same choice as Peter, as final place of his pastoral work, and as place of his martyrdom. Rome. So we can in no way “weigh” Paul against Peter. We have indeed to weigh the two together !
    As it was already perceived in the most ancient times, Rome is Peter …. plus Paul. And the Church celebrates the two the same day, June 29th…
  2. As for the concept of multiple successors with different roles or ranks, Peter having successors in Antioch besides Rome ( and there are unfortunately several Patriarchs claiming the succession in that seat ) , IMHO we can look at modern situations for an admittedly imperfect but hopefully useful comparison.
We can say that the Presidents of the USA are successors of President X.
If President X had been Governor of State Y, we can also correctly say the following Governors there are his successors ( in that capacity). That does not nevertheless put those Governors on equal footing with the Presidents of the United States. 🙂

I hope this can help.
In Christ.
P7
 
Pinoy… that (apologetics) is my approach for my 6th grade Faith Formation class. It’s basically a walk through the Bible (Salvation History), so I get to touch on just about everything. I think it works. I actually had the mother of one of my kids tell me her boy never wanted to go to FF classes until this year. I never got it growing up either. That changed 4 years ago and I’ve felt called to share this with the kids, so they don’t turn out like I was. Through your inspiration, He might be calling you to share in some way too!
God Bless you on your journey.
(Sorry to be off topic everyone… my bad)
 
I think it can be reasonably shown that Peter was in Rome and that Rome was the seat of authority for at least the first few hundred years and beyond.

catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304frs.asp

Perhaps one of the reasons that the seat of authority is still in Rome today is due to tradition and apostolic succession. There is no good reason that it should be anywhere else is there?

The early Christians did have many churches but they were all united as Catholics (universal). The authority structure of the church is one reason why the church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top