Peter...the Bishop of Rome?

[davidv]

I’m curious…where does the notion that Peter was the Bishop of Rome come from? The Clementine Recognitions state that it was Paul whom ordained Linus, before Peter even got there. So how is the Bishop of Rome able to hold the seat of Peter, if Peter never actually held the seat?

A Pac

Why was is named “the seat of Peter” if Peter didn’t occupy it. Being ordained does not make one the pope. Ordination creates a priest or bishop. Just because today, the Pope is also the bishop of Rome doesn’t change that fact the the two positions are distinct and need not be occupied by the same person.

 

[SPH1]

I need to apologize to everyone…I mis-sited the reference. The Paul/Linus connection wasn’t the Recognitions but in the Apostolic Constitutions…

Peter writes: "Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these: … Of the church of Rome

Thanks for the correction.

Your quotation apparently places Peter in Rome on it’s face, which should answer your opening post.

As for the “ordination”, I’m still not clear if it means as Bishop or as Priest. Returning to my Clement link:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.viii.x.i.html

Linus and Cletus could not have been Bishops of Rome, for they were merely coadjutors of the Apostles during their lifetime. Clement was the first who succeeded to their work after their death; and thus he should unquestionably be made the first of the Roman bishops,—a position of which he was eminently worthy, for his was the spirit of St. Peter himselfLinus and Cletus could not have been Bishops of Rome, for they were merely coadjutors of the Apostles during their lifetime. Clement was the first who succeeded to their work after their death; and thus he should unquestionably be made the first of the Roman bishops,—a position of which he was eminently worthy, for his was the spirit of St. Peter himself

I tend to agree, while Peter (or Paul) were alive and in Rome, neither Linus nor Cletus was Bishop of Rome. So the reference to “ordination” might mean to their initial ordination into the clergy: Priest and maybe Deacon before that. Was one ordained a priest by Paul and the other by Peter?

 

[A_Pac]

Why was is named “the seat of Peter” if Peter didn’t occupy it.

Easy. Retroactive juxtaposition.

Your quotation apparently places Peter in Rome on it’s face, which should answer your opening post.

Then you obviously haven’t understood my argument. Read it agai

I tend to agree, while Peter (or Paul) were alive and in Rome, neither Linus nor Cletus was Bishop of Rome. So the reference to “ordination” might mean to their initial ordination into the clergy: Priest and maybe Deacon before that. Was one ordained a priest by Paul and the other by Peter?

On the contrary, the Constitutions says that they WERE ordained Bishops. You’re idea conflicts directly with the Constitutions…which is fine. But it IS in conflict.

A Pac

 

[tdgesq]

Why is it that some find it so difficult to cite and link to their sources, even after being asked?

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.viii.iv.html

And here is Schaff’s analysis of the age and authorship of the Constitutions:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.i.html

I’ll comment when I have some time.

 

[A_Pac]

Why is it that some find it so difficult to cite and link to their sources, even after being asked?

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.viii.iv.html

And here is Schaff’s analysis of the age and authorship of the Constitutions:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.i.html

I’ll comment when I have some time.

Because, some of us have our personal notes…and aren’t in the mood of typing books for your perusal.

 

[tdgesq]

Because, some of us have our personal notes…and aren’t in the mood of typing books for your perusal.

And what authority do your personal notes carry for the rest of us? You don’t need to type a book, all you need to do is link to a source that you well know is available online, or give a proper cite to author, source, and chapter. This is basic stuff.

 

[MilesXpisti]

snickers The Pseudo-Clementine Apostolic Constitutions…will this dead horse never cease to be beaten? Please direct your attention to Book V, Section XIII: “Brethren, observe the festival days; and first of all the birthday which you are to celebrate on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month…” 25th of Kislev, a date roughly analagous to the 25th of December. Christmas. That’s right, a holiday that wasn’t even thought of during the Apostolic age, the notion (not the date) of which was denounced by many including Origen, and ignored still by the likes of Tertullian. There is no mention of the formal feast of Christmas on that day until the last quarter of the fourth century, round about the time it was coming into vogue in the Eastern Empire following the death Valens, who had endorsed Arianism as the official formula of Christianity in Constantinople. Further the earliest example of any feast like it (and not a universal one as the Constitutios would describe), was around 200, quite a ways past the death of the last Apostle.

Let this rest, please.

 

[SPH1]

On the contrary, the Constitutions says that they WERE ordained Bishops. You’re idea conflicts directly with the Constitutions…which is fine. But it IS in conflict.

A Pac

They may have been ordained “bishops”, but that would have been as auxilary bishops at best, as my link and quote above would suggest. My Diocese of Sacramento until recentily had an auxilary Bishop. But the Pontificates of Linus and Cletus did not commence until after the deaths of the apostles Peter and Paul. While alive, both Peter and Paul would have higher ranking.

Here is a list of Popes, one can click the link on the individual Pope to read more:

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Peter (and Paul) were dead when Linus (and Cletus) and Clemens served as Bishop of Rome. So unless Peter ordained Clemens from the grave (Apostolic Constitutions), I still maintain that they were not full Bishops while the apostles still lived. Perhaps their “ordination” was a selection for succession upon the deaths of the apostles.

As for the Apostolic Constitutions, one can read about it here:

newadvent.org/cathen/01636a.htm

 

[thistle]

After feeling the anti-Catholic undertones from A Pac I checked his profile. He’s a Mormon. No wonder he is desperately trying to discredit our Church.

 

[Victor0]

Hmm…

Well in great simplicity, it was Peter who stayed in Rome and built the Church up.

And it was Paul who left Rome and built the Church out.

 

[estesbob]

Hmm…

Well in great simplicity, it was Peter who stayed in Rome and built the Church up.

And it was Paul who left Rome and built the Church out.

Well we know it wasnt Joseph Smith…

 

[A_Pac]

Tdgesq,

If my personal quotes have a quote from another text, that’s my prerogative to use. Books on my shelves don’t have “links” to them. Stop whining. In fact, don’t converse with me again.

MilesX,

Let this rest, please.

Why, because it’s apocryphal? You can attack the source all you want…but you haven’t dealt with the detail. Who ordained Linus?

Peter (and Paul) were dead when Linus (and Cletus) and Clemens served as Bishop of Rome. So unless Peter ordained Clemens from the grave (Apostolic Constitutions), I still maintain that they were not full Bishops while the apostles still lived. Perhaps their “ordination” was a selection for succession upon the deaths of the apostles.

SPH1,

Frankly, to use terms such as “full Bishops,” etc. is anachronistic. Terms were not likely used expressly the same as today.

Thistle,

After feeling the anti-Catholic undertones from A Pac I checked his profile. He’s a Mormon. No wonder he is desperately trying to discredit our Church.

Someone want to let Sherlock know that he’s stumbled into the fray a bit late. Thanks. But FYI, I don’t need to discredit it. That’s not even my purpose. The link as promulgated is untenable and I want to see what defense I may have missed. But thanks for the strawman—it was cute.

A Pac

 

[Verisimilitude]

P.S. Sorry…Irenaeus clumps Peter and Paul together as the founders, but they didn’t arrive together. That’s the hole in the story.

Why is that a hole in the story?
There was 3 years of public ministry with Christ before He was killed. The next 30 years laid the foundation to what Catholicism is today; currently 1 in 6 people on the planet. The commandment to spread the Good News did not include a “write biographies before you are martyred or die” clause.

The question is almost trivial. In fact it is.

The story is: Jesus Christ sent two Arrows into the heart of the very beast that killed Him. It took 30-35 years for them to hit their target. It takes a lot to change the world. It also takes time.

These two arrows were tipped with love and the truth of God. It was a sure bet- looking back on it now, that within 3 centuries the Church, being the Body of Christ became The influence of the known world, and as such Her influence has set the foundation of Judeo-Christian law based governments that are understood to be a part of the free world today; to include most of the non-Christian nations defeated in war with those sometimes secular/sometimes not governments. WW2 was arguably a religious war. The losers are winning now. From death to Life. Funny how that works time after time.

Accepting the known tradition is enough. The minor specifics of who was killed first or, said what to whom, is irrelevant to a large degree. It must have been a difficult time for the growing Community to organize while the Apostles were being killed.

There is legitimacy in the authority of the Catholic Church like no other.

 

[Victor0]

Accepting the known tradition is enough. The minor specifics of who was killed first or, said what to whom, is irrelevant to a large degree. It must have been a difficult time for the growing Community to organize while the Apostles were being killed.

There is legitimacy in the authority of the Catholic Church like no other.

Amen to that!

 

[MilesXpisti]

MilesX,

Why, because it’s apocryphal? You can attack the source all you want…but you haven’t dealt with the detail. Who ordained Linus?

So you acknowledge that the spirit of the composition, i.e. that it is misrepresented as having been produced and compiled by Clement (be that the one mention biblically or not) in contact and discourse with the Twelve Apostles, when it is obviously a fabrication from at the earliest the third century, but take a proposed line of succession as being a kernel of truth therein?

Has it not occured to that the environment in which it was most likely produced, third to fourth century Byzantine East, was rife with anti-Western/anti-Catholic Greek hierarchy that had time and again been corrected and admonished by the Bishop of Rome for endorsing the heretical pseudo-theologies of the Byzantine Emperors? That such men were desperate to find any means to discredit the Apostolic See, the very same one to which they appealed time and again when their compromise with heresy threatened to bring the wrath of the faithful against them?

I’m sorry, but with this exception, I know of no other extant or quoted source suggesting this particular circular ordination at the Church of Rome, or anywhere else. And according to nearly all of the Fathers who had records of the Pontifical Line, Linus was ordained bishop by Peter himself, to oversee the Church in his absence. The only contrary view comes from Tertullian, who actually places him third in line, after St. Clement himself.

 

[tdgesq]

If my personal quotes have a quote from another text, that’s my prerogative to use. Books on my shelves don’t have “links” to them. Stop whining. In fact, don’t converse with me again.

Asking you to properly cite your sources is whining? Then go ahead and cite to the book on your shelf, since now apparently your quote didn’t come from your “notes” at all. Let’s have it. What book is it?

Maybe this is why Milesx has a problem with the reliability of your unknown source:

Dr. Von Drey regards the first six books as of Eastern origin (mainly Syrian), and to be assigned to the second half of the third century. The seventh and eighth were more recent, he thinks, but united with the others before a.d. 325. With this, Schaff (in his Church History, vol. ii, rev. ed., p. 185) substantially agreed; but, in his later work on the Teaching, seems to assign the completion of the compilation to a date somewhat later.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.i.html

The seventh book is the one from which you (at least we are all guessing) quoted from. Why should we rely upon “hearsay” from this unknown author?

Who ordained Linus?

If you can tell us why it matters maybe somebody will answer. Apparently you’ve forgotten the lesson RobNY taught you about the converse of an A proposition.

 

[Nita]

Nita,

The claim is that the RCC sits in the chair of Peter, and my point is that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome. …

 

[A_Pac]

Verisimilitude:

Why is that a hole in the story?

Because if the authority to run the church was indeed never received by Linus, etc., the RCC would therefore not have the authority of Christ, and be a false church. That’s why it’s a hole.

Accepting the known tradition is enough.

Appeal to tradition is fallacious, and I reject it.

There is legitimacy in the authority of the Catholic Church like no other.

Actually, it’s an untenable claim. If you think otherwise…fill the hole as I’ve presented it.

Miles,

So you acknowledge that the spirit of the composition, i.e. that it is misrepresented as having been produced and compiled by Clement

No…I recognize that’s the problem with pretty much ALL of the apocrypha…the question of legitimacy. While you call it a fabrication, that’s presumptuous. Scholars simply and honestly don’t know.

Linus was ordained bishop by Peter

Except, no one actually SAYS this. The may list it, but no one makes the claim! That’s the hole. The history is ASSUMED, but not mentioned.

Tdgesq,

Apostolic Constitutions…it was already sited. Google it if you want. Stop whining.

Maybe this is why Milesx has a problem with the reliability of your unknown source:

On the contrary, Milesx, I believe, understands what the source is…and that it is not unknown.

Nita,

Never heard the claim that the RCC sits in the chair of Peter. Rather that the chair of Peter resides in the RCC.

Semantics, semantics. Very well…chalk that one up to the oxycodone. 

It was those very Apostles and Bishops who were alive that empowered Linus. If they hadn’t, you can be sure they would have spoken out against him;

No…I can’t accept that. If he was the head Bishop in Rome, what Bishop would come out against him? And if the Apostles in Rome had died and John was at Patmos, how would he spoken out against him? I reject this assumption.

there would be at least some written reference denouncing his assumption of power, his claim to be Peter’s successor.

And I reject argumentum ad ignorantium. Likewise, if Linus had the keys then there should be a record explaining how he got them. There isn’t…so what should we conclude?

The authority of those living apostles and bishops gave Linus the authority.

Says who? To PRESUME it is plausible, but there’s certainly no record, and that makes it an untenable claim.

Because Our Lord never told him that was his responsibility. What is the basis for your assuming that it was or should be?

Since the Lord past the keys to the Apostles, why wouldn’t the Apostles need to pass them to the Bishops? Moreover, obviously John received them by Matthew 18 as you point out…so why wasn’t he in charge since he was alive?

I don’t think so. God Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, was willing to submit Himself to the authority of Joseph and Mary (Luke 2:51). They (apostles and other bishops) learned humility from Our Lord.

That makes no sense. Moreover, Jesus let his parents know when He was about His Father’s business. To go down the path you are suggesting is to thus assume that ANYONE can assume authority because that authority should be humble and submit himself. Read that again…it makes very, little sense…particularly since Jesus outlined that they were first apostles, prophets, etc.

A Pac

P.S. I do appreciate your posts. I find you easy to dialog with, and not afraid to open the scriptures which I appreicate.

 

[jmcrae]

Because you obviously didn’t understand the question. I believe that Peter was in Rome. I also believe he was a Bishop (obviously).

How it works is that a man can be ordained. Then, later (years later), he becomes Pope.

Joseph Ratzinger was ordained by a Bishop in Germany somewhere. As Pope, he is the immediate successor of Pope John Paul II. That doesn’t mean that Pope John Paul II actually ordained him, though. Nor did Pope John Paul II personally appoint him to be his successor - the Cardinals did that, in the Conclave.

Linus could easily have been Peter’s Successor as chief shepherd of the Church, without ever having met the man in his whole life. (It’s unlikely, but it’s entirely possible.)

But it was Paul that founded Rome and ordained Linus.

The Church at Rome already existed before either Peter or Paul had ever set foot there, as we see in the letter to the Romans.

Linus was the Bishop of Rome when Peter came and when he died. As an apostle, he was more than a bishop…but he was not the Bishop of Rome. That was Linus and Antecleus.

This does not make it impossible for them to have become successors to Peter in his role as chief shepherd of the Church, at the time of his death. Peter died in Rome, and it would have been natural to pass on the Succession to the nearest Bishop available, which would have been the Bishop of Rome; whether Linus became Bishop of Rome and Successor to Peter at the same time, or whether these things happened separately, either way, Peter could still have made him his own Successor. Even if Peter had never been Bishop of Rome (although I do think that he was) he could still have done that.

 

[Nita]

Nita,

… but what I suggest is that the authoritative claim is untenable because this connection is missing–there isn’t even a germane claim. There’s nothing that addresses the passing of authority from Peter to Linus…it’s just assumed to have happened.